Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Objective Morality and atheism

    A few definitions:

    DEFINITION 1: A system S is a collection of propositions, along with a system of inference. We'll be using standard logic. If p is a proposition in S, write pS. If p is a proposition not in S, write pS.

    DEFINITION 2: A system is closed if (pS and pqS) ⇒ qS.


    Example: Suppose that "Jane is in France" ∈ S, and "If Jane is in France, then Jane is in Europe" ∈ S. If S is closed, then "Jane is in Europe" ∈ S.



    DEFINITION 3: The closure of a system S, Cl S, is the collection of all pS together with all propositions entailed by propositions in S.

    Proposition 1: By definition of a system, if S is a system then Cl S is itself a system.

    Proposition 2: Cl S is clearly closed, by definition of closed.


    Example: Suppose "Jane is taller than George" ∈ S, and "George is 5 feet tall" ∈ S. Then "Jane is taller than 5 feet" ∈ Cl S.



    DEFINITION 4: A system S is inconsistent if Cl S contains a contradiction. Otherwise, S is called consistent.


    Example: Suppose "John is taller than Kate" ∈ S, "John is 5 feet tall" ∈ S, and "Kate is 6 feet tall" ∈ S. Then S is inconsistent.



    HERE'S THE CHALLENGE:

    Does there exist a system S satisfying the following properties:

    i) S is consistent;
    ii) "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S
    iii) "Objective moral values exist" ∈ Cl S


    ---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

    So a nice thing about this terminology is that it gives you a nice way of talking about systems that implement other systems, or that extend other systems.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; April 26th, 2012 at 11:30 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    A. How do you type those symbols.
    B. What is the debate? I don't quite get it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    A. How do you type those symbols.
    I copied them from wikipedia. You can copy+paste them from my post.

    B. What is the debate? I don't quite get it.
    The debate is whether:

    1) A system S satisfying (i), (ii), and (iii) exists; or

    2) No system S can simultaneously satisfy (i), (ii), or (iii); or

    3) It is impossible to prove (1) or (2).


    If either (1) or (2) is shown to be the case, then we would have an answer to whether the existence of objective morality necessitates the existence of God.

    If (3) is shown to be the case, then whether or not the existence of objective morality necessitates the existence of God would have to be taken as an axiom.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    So basicly you mean that:

    1) some thing has properties
    2) some properties can be synonymous or can be groupped hierachically for example
    3) you can compare properties of some thing to some thing else
    4) you can make true / false statements between compared properties of some things

    Is that correct?

    Then questions:

    1) are we using unique labels for something and properties, or can Jane be attached to several things? Also can we attach different labels for one and same thing?
    2) do you allow multiple inheritance on grouping?
    3) are there any justifications/limitations for comparing?
    4) do you allow possibility of none or both on result of comparing? is there only one spacetime concept for system?
    Panta rhei - Heracleitos

  5. #5
    EmilyBunn
    Guest

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    You can be moral when you are an atheist, but most morals are taken from religion.

  6. #6
    TrulySarcastic
    Guest

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by EmilyBunn View Post
    You can be moral when you are an atheist, but most morals are taken from religion.
    That is a profound and amazing statement!

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by EmilyBunn View Post
    You can be moral when you are an atheist, but most morals are taken from religion.
    So morals did not precede religion?

  8. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    ii. is impossible to demonstrate. Well it hasn't been demonstrated yet by any human I am aware of.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Say: "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S
    The purpose of God is to believe in Him. If his existence could be proven without any shade of doubt then this would contradict the whole purpose of religion. Therefore inorder for your question to make sense, you must be assuming the existence of God and the only question you are really asking here is if He belongs to Cl S or not. This last one can be proven.
    Or more accurately, there exists only One God g ∉ Cl S
    Why?
    Because if God were to be part of Cl S, then God would also be encompassed by S itself.
    Now our Universe S can never encompass God, because S is a created system and this would imply for the Creator to be encompassed by his own creation. This is impossible for it would yield the question: “Where was God before he created the Universe?”
    Therefore, even though the following expression holds true nl. that: God g ⇒ q ∈ S ⇒ q ∈ S
    However, because g ∉ S
    therefore g ∉ Cl S

    After having demonstrated that g ∉ Cl S
    I now will continue with proving the third requirement, nl. That: "Objective moral values exist" ∈ Cl S
    Because God is perfect it follows that God is Just.
    Why? Because injustice is a quality of imperfection.
    Because God is Just, it follows that He will Judge us people.
    Why? Because for someone Just to allow Injustice to happen without any repercussions while having the power to implement justice is a contradiction in terms.
    Because God will Judge us people, that is why He has sent Prophets to us.
    Why? Because judging us without us knowing what is for us and what is against us is imposing upon us a responsibility that we cannot bear. Such an imposition contradicts that God is free from blemishes.
    Prophets are people who receive revelation and who are part of this Universe S.
    This revelation has been recorded and preserved up till now, and is also part of this Universe S.
    This revelation implies an Absolute/Objective Moral Code that we need to adhere to.
    Putting everything together I can now demonstrate that revelation r ∈ Cl S
    Because prophet p is a human and every human is part of this Universe S, therefore p ∈ S holds true. Because revelation r is revealed unto p therefore r is also part of this Universe, hence r ∈ S
    also holds true.
    Because p conveys to us r, therefore (p ∈ S and p ⇒ r ∈ S) ⇒ r ∈ S also holds true.
    Finally r ⇒ moral code m ∈ S
    Therefore (r ∈ S and r ⇒ m ∈ S) ⇒ m ∈ S also holds true
    Because God is Perfect, therefore r is free from blemishes therefore m is a set of Absolute Objective Moral values.
    Therefore (m is existent) ∈ Cl S
    The only thing remaining is to proof the first point nl. That:
    S is consistent;
    You can only speak about the consistency of S if Cl S exists in the first place.
    This is existent because I already have proven above that (m is existent) ∈ Cl S
    Cl S does not contain any contradictions, because if it did, then S would be an Universe filled with absurdities, which is contrary to our observation. Also, God g ⇒ S and God does not create absurdities.

  10. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandel View Post
    I now will continue with proving the third requirement, nl. That: "Objective moral values exist" ∈ Cl S
    Because God is perfect it follows that God is Just.
    Why? Because injustice is a quality of imperfection.
    Because God is Just, it follows that He will Judge us people.
    Why? Because for someone Just to allow Injustice to happen without any repercussions while having the power to implement justice is a contradiction in terms.
    Because God is perfect? Why assume perfection? What is perfection anyway?

    Also, it doesn't follow that if she is perfect that she is automatically just. Also, what is justice?

    It also doesn't follow that if God is perfect and just that she will judge humans or that she must implement repercussions. She lets people get away with evil all the time.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    Because God is perfect? Why assume perfection? What is perfection anyway?

    Also, it doesn't follow that if she is perfect that she is automatically just. Also, what is justice?

    It also doesn't follow that if God is perfect and just that she will judge humans or that she must implement repercussions. She lets people get away with evil all the time.
    God being perfect is because of the definition of God. Anything that is not perfect is not God.
    The definition of justice is to place things where they belong. To misplace them is either injustice or grace. For instance, in Islamic law, when a person kills someone else intentionally then retribution can be taken. For the family members to act upon this retribution is on the principle of an eye for an eye justice. To go to the extreme and to first torture the criminal is injustice and for the family members to forgive him is grace.

    You are quoting my answer to why God is Just. Because injustice is a trait of imperfection.
    God letting people get away with crime is nothing but respite. Judgement is in the hereafter, repentance is for now. That is why we refer to the day of resurrection as Judgement day.
    I hope this answers your questions.

    Another aspect is that you didn't break any of my arguments. You only denied them.

  12. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandel View Post
    God being perfect is because of the definition of God. Anything that is not perfect is not God.
    The definition of justice is to place things where they belong. To misplace them is either injustice or grace. For instance, in Islamic law, when a person kills someone else intentionally then retribution can be taken. For the family members to act upon this retribution is on the principle of an eye for an eye justice. To go to the extreme and to first torture the criminal is injustice and for the family members to forgive him is grace.

    You are quoting my answer to why God is Just. Because injustice is a trait of imperfection.
    God letting people get away with crime is nothing but respite. Judgement is in the hereafter, repentance is for now. That is why we refer to the day of resurrection as Judgement day.
    I hope this answers your questions.

    Another aspect is that you didn't break any of my arguments. You only denied them.
    Justice is things being in their place? Justice is a human contruct and exists nowhere in nature other than human civilization, and in no definition have I heard that it is things being in their place. I think you are confusing justice with organization and mabe ergonomics?

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    Justice is things being in their place? Justice is a human contruct and exists nowhere in nature other than human civilization, and in no definition have I heard that it is things being in their place. I think you are confusing justice with organization and mabe ergonomics?
    You are not using your mind to understand what I am saying. Look carefully at the example I provided, is that an example of ergonomics or an example about how to place things in their legal categories eg allowed, not allowed, preferable etc.? Think before you write

  14. #14
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    976
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandel View Post
    You are not using your mind to understand what I am saying. Look carefully at the example I provided, is that an example of ergonomics or an example about how to place things in their legal categories eg allowed, not allowed, preferable etc.? Think before you write
    You gave an example of revenge not justice at least in my opinion.

    I still don't know what you mean by justice.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    You gave an example of revenge not justice at least in my opinion.

    I still don't know what you mean by justice.
    Thanks for the question.
    First of all, if you believe there is something like a Law of Morality, you will have to agree that following categories exist:
    Permissible, Prohibited, Preferable, Reprehensible.

    What is the neutral position over here? It is Permissible.
    Now any action you take, wheigh it according to that normative law.
    Justice means that you place things where they belong. Where to things belong? In their neutral state, which in case of a normative law is the category of permissible. Why because you neither gave it an advantage, neither a disadvantage, you balanced it in the middlepath.
    If you give it a positive preference then it is called grace, because it is getting more than it deserves.
    If you give it a negative preference then it is called oppression because you are deducting it from what it deserves.
    This applied to the example, when the family members execute the person, it is justice because in the normative law i am referring to it is permissible.
    If you torture him, then your action is placed in the category of prohibited, which is going below what the criminal deserves therefore it is injustice.
    If you forgive him then this action is more than what was required from you, therefor you gave him grace.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    A few definitions:

    DEFINITION 1: A system S is a collection of propositions, along with a system of inference. We'll be using standard logic. If p is a proposition in S, write pS. If p is a proposition not in S, write pS.

    DEFINITION 2: A system is closed if (pS and pqS) ⇒ qS.


    Example: Suppose that "Jane is in France" ∈ S, and "If Jane is in France, then Jane is in Europe" ∈ S. If S is closed, then "Jane is in Europe" ∈ S.



    DEFINITION 3: The closure of a system S, Cl S, is the collection of all pS together with all propositions entailed by propositions in S.

    Proposition 1: By definition of a system, if S is a system then Cl S is itself a system.

    Proposition 2: Cl S is clearly closed, by definition of closed.


    Example: Suppose "Jane is taller than George" ∈ S, and "George is 5 feet tall" ∈ S. Then "Jane is taller than 5 feet" ∈ Cl S.



    DEFINITION 4: A system S is inconsistent if Cl S contains a contradiction. Otherwise, S is called consistent.


    Example: Suppose "John is taller than Kate" ∈ S, "John is 5 feet tall" ∈ S, and "Kate is 6 feet tall" ∈ S. Then S is inconsistent.



    HERE'S THE CHALLENGE:

    Does there exist a system S satisfying the following properties:

    i) S is consistent;
    ii) "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S
    iii) "Objective moral values exist" ∈ Cl S


    ---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

    So a nice thing about this terminology is that it gives you a nice way of talking about systems that implement other systems, or that extend other systems.
    I believe that objective morality is an inherently flawed premise. So I would tend to assert that adding III to any system, S, will lead to a new system, S', which contradicts itself. Nevertheless, let's suppose that I didn't hold this to be true.


    Keep in mind here, the entire premise behind something being "Objective" is that there is something forcing everyone to agree upon its truth value. So for instance, the laws of logic and the laws of Nature are objectively true. Given sufficient evidence or reasoning, every single human being must be capable of recognizing their truth. We know what the laws of logic are; we don't know what the true laws of Nature are. So this statement isn't contingent on us knowing what they are, we simply need to know that they are assigned truth values and that everyone agrees upon these truth values.

    Where the concept of objective morality jumps ship here is that the universe is the way that it is and the laws of logic are the way they are because they couldn't have been otherwise (Perhaps the laws of Nature couldn't have been otherwise, we don't know). The difference with morality and trying to raise moral claims up to the standards of objectivity is that unlike logic or the laws of Nature, moral claims need an arbitrator. I can comprehend why logic is true, and I have a world to access, observe, and test the laws of Nature. There is no equivalent for morality. This means that in order to have access to "objective moral objects", there needs to be an arbiter. Now, and here's the problem with God, there's nothing stopping me from arbitrarily picking God or a five year old. With morality, there's no way to "observe" moral truths, so really no individuals moral arbitration is objectively any better than anyone else's. So I can have objective moral truths based upon the whim of a 5 year old, and everyone would objectively agree on what the 5 year old says on morality. It doesn't mean that they would personally agree with the 5 year old, but they would objectively agree that under that objective moral code, it evaluates "X is wrong" as a statement of fact.

    Keep in mind here, this is exactly how the God-Given-Morality idea works:

    A: "X is morally wrong to do."
    B: "Why?"
    A: "Because God commanded* it's morally wrong to do it."

    The fact that this hypothetical entity created the universe does lend its moral opinions any special weight, either. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and the Creator of the universe was a horrible being who loved the death and suffering of all living things, and there was a stray archangel fighting to help humanity. Under this notion, you would be forced to say that death and suffering are moral virtues because the Creator Entity said so.



    So with that said, yes, it's in a sense trivial to have a system where there is no God but there's an absolute morality. Or rather, I'll make the following claim: Any definition of objective morality that's capable of being satisfied in a system, S, by God is also capable of being satisfied as true in system, S', without God by a different entity or standard.




    *Read: Asserted by fiat, no different than the 5 year old.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    HERE'S THE CHALLENGE:

    Does there exist a system S satisfying the following properties:

    i) S is consistent;
    ii) "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S
    iii) "Objective moral values exist" ∈ Cl S
    [COLOR="Silver"]
    No.

    Proposition ii has not been established. Without establishing it as true, it's a nonsense statement. If you assume it's true without establishing it first, it's a meaningless statement (akin to "If Superman is real and flies then isn't it true that Superman can fly?").

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    No.

    Proposition ii has not been established. Without establishing it as true, it's a nonsense statement. If you assume it's true without establishing it first, it's a meaningless statement (akin to "If Superman is real and flies then isn't it true that Superman can fly?").
    So you object to the fact that the non-existence of God has not been established?

    So Zhavric rejects the assertion that "God does not exist."

    Interesting.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    No.

    Proposition ii has not been established. Without establishing it as true, it's a nonsense statement. If you assume it's true without establishing it first, it's a meaningless statement (akin to "If Superman is real and flies then isn't it true that Superman can fly?").
    Nowhere was it given that the propositions in S must be true in the actual world.

    For example, the set {"Superman exists."} is a system (when taken with a method of logical inference), even though "Superman exists" is not true in the actual world.

    Systems that contain statements that are not true in the actual world can still be useful to investigate. The purpose of this thread is to establish whether God is logically necessary for objective morality. I'm not interested in whether God actually exists in this world--not yet, anyway.

    Do you see the strength of this approach? If it can be shown that there is a system that can be constructed which satisfies my conditions, then atheism is compatible with objective morality. [There might still be an incompatibility between other common features of modern atheism--Naturalism, empiricism, etc.--and objective morality.] If this is so, then proving that atheism is true does not prove that objective morality is false.

    If it can be shown that no such system can be constructed, then atheism is incompatible with objective morality. If this is so, then proving that objective morality is true proves that atheism is false.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective Morality and atheism

    As is often the case the definitions here kind of matter because I think they are often second or third order in some respect.

    "God" for instance means a lot of different things depending on who you talk to, especially when you capitalize it. God is commonly the Christian or Jewish God of the bible. Even there you can ask if its the triune godhead, one of the personas of said triune, some unified conception of God etc... Its a mess. If you say god, then you are just widening the range of deity figures to include a host of religious views that have god's of various qualities.

    The subject is morality and specifically objective morality so there are two more important terms and fortunately a bit less challenging than god.

    Objective at its core means outside of individual human judgement/perception. Taken to its extreme it means without human influence/involvement. Something truly objective would be true for a rock as it is for a man.

    Morality of course is very much about mankind. It is the moral behavioral guideline defining right and wrong actions. Specifically actions of human beings. So no moral system can be truly objective with respect to humanity since it is necessarily limited to humanity.

    This would make Objective Morality self contradictory so its a bad definition. Instead we must mean "objective" with respect to an individual human being. So within the scope of human behavior a given moral precept is true regardless of what any given individual asserts even though it has no meaning to any agent outside of the human sphere (such as a rock or a bird for instance).

    So this leads us to how you would identify an objective morality and what its precepts are. Because this moral code is singular (because any competing code would mean it is not objective in the human scope) you have to have a moral supreme authority that can establish and communicate the moral code.

    Thus any objective moral system necessarily has a supreme moral authority.

    Now this authority could take any number of forms and can be established in any number of ways. The only real defining characteristic is it must dictate a moral code, and it is not changed by any individual or collective human opinion.

    You could if you like call that thing God, but that would add a great many traits not proven by the logical construct. I could also say that there is an objective moral code written on a slab of stone on the planet jupiter. It too would satisfy the need for a supreme moral authority. It is objective with respect to human opinion.

    What does it really mean for us?
    Not much just yet. We can imagine a great many objective moral codes but how do we determine supremacy of authority?

    The Christian approach is to imagine a supreme agent that in all respects surpasses any other imaginable agent by declaring it as such. God is not just a supreme moral authority, he is the supreme authority in all respects to everything. The supreme of mental accuracy, the supreme of beauty, the supreme of might, etc... you name it he's the supreme of it.

    But again, this is an imagined construct, I could imagine a supreme supreme and name it anything I liked. Nor would I point out is it needed. It could simply be my Jupiter Rock has no more powerful moral competitors and thus is the supreme moral authority even though other things are greater than Jupiter Rock in other respects such as being larger or more motile or having a shinier surface. none of these qualities challenge its status as moral authority.

    But intuitively we can imagine a greater moral authority than a Jupiter Rock. If there were a Mars Rock that had robot enforcers, it would easily be more able to ensure its moral code were followed and thus we could say it had greater de-facto moral authority than Jupiter Rock. If we humans want to do more than imagine a supreme moral authority we must find practical measures by which we can judge the authority by virtue of its impact.

    Proposed measures of judgement
    -consistency of moral code
    -adherence to moral code
    -clarity of moral code
    -enforcement of moral code by authority
    -identification of authority

    When you look at the bible it is clearly striving to demonstrate these aspects. It identifies the authority, lays out elements of the code, describes their widespread use, shows enforcement of the code and so forth. Other religious works do much the same. They are indeed all a means to try and support a claim to supreme moral authority for their proposed figurehead or figureheads.

    Secular humanists such as myself dispute the accuracy of these works and propose they are in fact human inventions. Attempts by human beings to become supreme moral authority which takes them outside the objective standard set earlier. We would argue these authorities are clearly not supreme since they can be openly defied, ignored, or perverted and beyond the text investigations into the actuality of the proposed moral agents turn up no hard evidence, only further evidence of human endeavors to establish supreme moral authority.

    Conclusions
    I've demonstrated you can have a supreme moral authority that is not equivalent to God, it only needs no greater imagined rival in the proposed set withing the scope of its authority (morality).
    I've demonstrated that any objective moral system needs a supreme moral authority.

    I've observed that there is little strong evidence supporting there is such a supreme moral authority in the real world. There are however many non-supreme moral agents within humanity (which are by definition subjective) for which there is a great deal of supporting evidence.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
  2. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 06:59 AM
  3. Evidence, Atheism and Morality
    By Booger in forum Religion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 01:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •