If GOD does not exist, then everything is permissible.

[Juma]

Why dont you refer to an instance of a such "win" so we can judge for ourselves?

I don't remember the specific instances. Sometimes, I remember the blog or forum, but I have no link. But I was just trying to help prevent that from happening again, at least to the posters here who hadn't understood the theistic claims, not to make a commitment to a debate I've been saying I didn't and don't want. I tried to search for old posts, but it turns out the FRDB archives are not accessible.
Still, if you want so see an example, a prominent one is the Craig vs. Harris debate, in which Harris doesn't seem to even know what he's talking about - assuming he's not deliberately derailing; either way, he loses badly in the end, even if he makes a few (very few) good points.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-t...lity-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris

If you prefer an example of an anonymous atheist, here's one:
http://creation.com/atheism-no-objective-morality

Here's another witness account (i.e., another person who has seen atheists making that sort of mistake over and over again).
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10018

I dont see any mistakes pn the atheist side here. If humans are more or less hardwired to have some moral values then these are objective, human, values.

That a separate entity, any god, could decide what is objectively moral to humans is totally bollocks.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But that is not what the atheists are replying, for the most part. They're getting it wrong on a number of levels, even if they get a few points right.
Purely for example

If people somehow knew that there really was no such thing as a god, then I expect there would still be plenty of things that matter, like family and friends, community, honesty, etc., just as there are in communities without religion today.

But the theists aren't questioning that. They're saying that expressions like "X is immoral" for any actual behavior X, would be false if God did not exist. The atheist keeps saying "a god", and keeps getting it wrong.

That reply misses the theist's argument entirely, which of course the theist points out.

Also,

If you still want to focus on logic, here are some criticisms. Primarily, you are attempting at a “straw man” attack on atheists, i.e. you’re trying to make atheists look foolish by asserting that atheism has no logical basis. It would be similar to me saying that theism is not based on reason, so theists must all be unreasonable.

But that's again not what the theist is doing. The theist is saying that there is no basis for morality on atheism.

Those are just two examples. Now, in this particular case, the theist also partially misrepresent the atheist, but the atheist fails for the most part to point that out, and in any case, the point remains that the atheist keeps getting most things wrong.

As for the other example, Harris also keeps missing the point, and Craig lands some decisive blows in retaliation.

But those aren't the worst cases by far. The worst ones happen between anonymous debaters on both sides, in some forum or another. It's been years since I read that sort of exchanges, and I don't have links, but it's pretty common.
Still, you can find examples in this very thread of errors that, if a theist defender of the argument had been here, would have given him a lot of ammo. Fortunately, there was no such theist here, and hopefully, at least some of those mistakes will not happen again if and when there is one.

 

[Lion IRC]

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God....

I think you are committing an equivocation fallacy here.

In what sense are the police and the courts "permitting" criminals to commit crime?

The vast majority of obedient (moral) citizens know that crime is NOT permitted and they know why it is not permissible.

But when an apologist talking about atheism says "without God everything is permissible" they are challenging the atheist to explain why that would not be the case.

No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

 

[Juma]

But the theists aren't questioning that. They're saying that expressions like "X is immoral" for any actual behavior X, would be false if God did not exist. The atheist keeps saying "a god", and keeps getting it wrong.

No, the atheist doesnt get it wrong. There are other reasons for saying "x is immoral" than there is a god.
And more impotsnt: there being a god has no impact on moral.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Juma, now you're getting my post wrong. Of course there are other reasons for saying "x is immoral" than there is a god - whatever you mean by "a god", which I don't know.
I never suggested otherwise.
Also, you also keep getting the theistic argument wrong by saying "a god" instead of "God" (see my previous posts for more info). And that was an example of an atheist getting it wrong. Now you provide another example (if you're an atheist).
What the atheists in my examples, some in this thread, etc., keep getting wrong is what the theists are saying (for the most part).

 

[Juma]

Juma, now you're getting my post wrong. Of course there are other reasons for saying "x is immoral" than there is a god - whatever you mean by "a god", which I don't know.
I never suggested otherwise.
Also, you also keep getting the theistic argument wrong by saying "a god" instead of "God" (see my previous posts for more info). And that was an example of an atheist getting it wrong. Now you provide another example (if you're an atheist).
What the atheists in my examples, some in this thread, etc., keep getting wrong is what the theists are saying (for the most part).

No, they dont. It is you accepting the theist view that makes you wrong. There is no difference, in this case, between saying " a god" and God. By two reasons: if God existed it would be "a god".
And the theist is saying thay god is required for moral and what the atheist show is that it isnt.

 

[fromderinside]

Juma, now you're getting my post wrong. Of course there are other reasons for saying "x is immoral" than there is a god - whatever you mean by "a god", which I don't know.
I never suggested otherwise.
Also, you also keep getting the theistic argument wrong by saying "a god" instead of "God" (see my previous posts for more info). And that was an example of an atheist getting it wrong. Now you provide another example (if you're an atheist).
What the atheists in my examples, some in this thread, etc., keep getting wrong is what the theists are saying (for the most part).

No, they dont. It is you accepting the theist view that makes you wrong. There is no difference, in this case, between saying " a god" and God. By two reasons: if God existed it would be "a god".
And the theist is saying thay god is required for moral and what the atheist show is that it isnt.

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

 

[Juma]

No, they dont. It is you accepting the theist view that makes you wrong. There is no difference, in this case, between saying " a god" and God. By two reasons: if God existed it would be "a god".
And the theist is saying thay god is required for moral and what the atheist show is that it isnt.

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

Exactly.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Juma, now you're getting my post wrong. Of course there are other reasons for saying "x is immoral" than there is a god - whatever you mean by "a god", which I don't know.
I never suggested otherwise.
Also, you also keep getting the theistic argument wrong by saying "a god" instead of "God" (see my previous posts for more info). And that was an example of an atheist getting it wrong. Now you provide another example (if you're an atheist).
What the atheists in my examples, some in this thread, etc., keep getting wrong is what the theists are saying (for the most part).

No, they dont. It is you accepting the theist view that makes you wrong. There is no difference, in this case, between saying " a god" and God. By two reasons: if God existed it would be "a god".
And the theist is saying thay god is required for moral and what the atheist show is that it isnt.

First, I'm not accepting the theist's view. I said repeatedly that they are making a really bad argument. You keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting my posts.
Second, I don't know whether if God existed, he would be a god (what do you mean by "a god"?), but even if that were so, it would not imply at all that there is no difference. All bats are mammals, but not all mammals are bats.
Third, the theist is saying that God is required for moral obligations, moral goodness, etc., to exist and/or be instantiated, and the atheists is saying many things, some that more or less indirectly deny part of what the theist is saying mostly without showing that their arguments are poor, and some (more) that just miss the point entirely and talk about something else.

- - - Updated - - -

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

Exactly.

What does "morality as social concordance" means, and how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God....

I think you are committing an equivocation fallacy here.

In what sense are the police and the courts "permitting" criminals to commit crime?

Which crimes are you talking about?
The ones the cops, not being omniscient, don't know about?
The ones that the cops, not being omnipotent, don't have the manpower to enforce?
The ones that the cops, not being perfect, have taken money or other incentives to ignore?
The ones that the cops, not being omnipresent, lack the jurisdiction to stop?

I mean, other than that, cops that see me speeding tend to stop me from breaking the law, as long as I'm in their jurisdiction and they're not committed to stopping some other evildoer from following too close or speeding or passing despite the double-yellow line.

If the cops were held to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and still did fuck-all to stop any single crime whatsoever, i'd question their existence, too. And the posting of speed-limit signs, in the absence of enforcement, would not be evidence that they existed.

The vast majority of obedient (moral) citizens know that crime is NOT permitted and they know why it is not permissible.

Well, yes. People make moral codes, they make laws, they train police, they fund police departments, they buy stop-light cameras...

But when an apologist talking about atheism says "without God everything is permissible" they are challenging the atheist to explain why that would not be the case.

Well, then that's a shifting of the burden of proof.
If it's your contention that only gods can make morals, then why would i believe you?

I have no reason to think gods exist, nor that they are the sole source of morality. What makes you think either of these is a fact?

No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

Back to the cops, because people getting together and deciding that some things ought to be right, other things are wrong. Why would we need to add a 'law-giver' to that?

 

[skepticalbip]

No, they dont. It is you accepting the theist view that makes you wrong. There is no difference, in this case, between saying " a god" and God. By two reasons: if God existed it would be "a god".
And the theist is saying thay god is required for moral and what the atheist show is that it isnt.

First, I'm not accepting the theist's view. I said repeatedly that they are making a really bad argument. You keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting my posts.
Second, I don't know whether if God existed, he would be a god (what do you mean by "a god"?), but even if that were so, it would not imply at all that there is no difference. All bats are mammals, but not all mammals are bats.
Third, the theist is saying that God is required for moral obligations, moral goodness, etc., to exist and/or be instantiated, and the atheists is saying many things, some that more or less indirectly deny part of what the theist is saying mostly without showing that their arguments are poor, and some (more) that just miss the point entirely and talk about something else.

- - - Updated - - -

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

Exactly.

What does "morality as social concordance" means, and how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

It is the difference between what the theist defines as "moral" and what the atheist defines as "moral". Both the theists and you, apparently, define as moral is some ethereal ideal actually existing on some "higher plane" of which humanity's moral codes are merely a shadow that wouldn't exist if not for the "true moral that exists on that higher plane". This means that the theist (and apparently you) are arguing a position rejected by atheists. There is no reason to expect atheists to accept such an idiotic concept in order to argue against it. Not accepting that concept does not mean that the atheists lose the argument.

ETA:
Meanwhile the atheists definition of "moral" is a social construct agreed to by a society. There is plenty of evidence that this is so by the different moral codes in different societies. The only theists' argument is to ignore this and continue to insist that morals come from a "higher power".

 

[Lion IRC]

...I mean, other than that, cops that see me speeding tend to stop me from breaking the law,

This is the important part of your post. It highlights where your equivocation arises.

You are already speeding when the police see you. Why?

Not because they "permitted" you to do so but because you freely decided to.
You can even speed right past a police station in full view of the police (and then they will persue you) but that doesn't entail any degree of "permissibility" of your action.

The ability of the police to eventually catch you and lock you up (omnipotence) has nothing to do with it. The fact that police know ahead of time that their speed detection cameras WILL catch you in the act - they place speed cameras in locations where (because of their omniscience) they KNOW people speed - is irrelevant. The fact that (invisible) undercover cops might be everywhere and you wouldn't know it, (omnipresent) is once again irrelevant. These are red herrings.

The fact remains that, even knowing the police are there, you are still "permitted" to do something which is NOT permissible. I would argue that you know speeding isn't permissible in a moral sense despite the fact that your foot is free to press the accelerator pedal.

 

[Lion IRC]

Now, if there were no police, no high speed pursuit cars, no flashing lights, no enforceable speed limits, no jails, no objective value to the human lives of pedestrians crossing the road...

Why then would speeding (driving at whatever speed you want to suit your own selfish interests) NOT be permissible?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is the difference between what the theist defines as "moral" and what the atheist defines as "moral". Both the theists and you, apparently, define as moral is some ethereal ideal actually existing on some "higher plane" of which humanity's moral codes are merely a shadow that wouldn't exist if not for the "true moral that exists on that higher plane". This means that the theist (and apparently you) are arguing a position rejected by atheists. There is no reason to expect atheists to accept such an idiotic concept in order to argue against it. Not accepting that concept does not mean that the atheists lose the argument.

First, it is false that I apparently define as "moral" some ethereal ideal or whatever. I never said or suggested anything like that. You're misrepresenting my posts, missing the points, etc. - much like many atheists do when replying to a theistic metaethical argument.
Second, the word "moral" might mean "morally permissible", or "morally obligatory"; I was using "immoral" instead, which prevents such ambiguity (but maybe you meant yet something else by "moral")
Third, theists who make metaethical arguments do not define moral terms - not if they have some basic philosophical knowledge.
Fourth, whatever appears to you I'm saying is far, far different from what I'm saying.
Fifth, you're vastly missing the point of the theistic argument.

ETA:
Meanwhile the atheists definition of "moral" is a social construct agreed to by a society. There is plenty of evidence that this is so by the different moral codes in different societies. The only theists' argument is to ignore this and continue to insist that morals come from a "higher power".

That's not a good definition. It fails to match the meaning of the word, under any of the more or less common usages relevant to this discussion. It even fails to match the referent. If you intend to make an argument for social relativism on the basis of apparent disagreement that persists, fine, but you should start arguing your case.
Now, let me ask you this. Is it not immoral for Wahhabi men in predominantly Wahhabi societies (or ancient Israelite men, etc.) to engage in espousal rape, even if the prevalent belief in their society is that such behavior (which they would not call "rape" is not immoral)?
Is it not immoral to stone people to death in order to punish them for adultery, in those societies in which nearly everyone believes that that is in fact morally appropriate punishment (or even that it's obligatory to punish them in such manner)?

 

[Juma]

how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

It shows how something is moral without the need of a god.

 

[Juma]

Now, if there were no police, no high speed pursuit cars, no flashing lights, no enforceable speed limits, no jails, no objective value to the human lives of pedestrians crossing the road...

Why then would speeding (driving at whatever speed you want to suit your own selfish interests) NOT be permissible?

Because it makes you (and other people) at risk and you dont want an sccident,

 

[Keith&Co.]

...I mean, other than that, cops that see me speeding tend to stop me from breaking the law,

This is the important part of your post. It highlights where your equivocation arises.

You are already speeding when the police see you. Why?

Because the cops are not omniscient, and cannot respond to crimes between my decision to do them and my commission of the crime. This is not at all comparable to any question of divine permission.

Not because they "permitted" you to do so but because you freely decided to.

There's another small problem in comparing this situation to the existence of God. The cops will pull me over for speeding even if I honestly do NOT know that i'm exceeding the limit.
The gods that supposedly source all morality would also know if i was making a simple mistake or if i intended to commit a crime.
To the cops, it's the same thing. I exceeded the speed limit, whether by choice, by ignorance or by a misindicating speedometer.

You can even speed right past a police station in full view of the police (and then they will persue you) but that doesn't entail any degree of "permissibility" of your action.

Less and less applicable to the question of 'without god all things are permissible.'

God does not pursue. Or prevent.
He permits all things and just punishes later.

The ability of the police to eventually catch you and lock you up (omnipotence) has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does.
The cops exist. I know the cops exist.
Had they the power, there are behaviors they were prevent.
If i speed without getting caught, that does not make me question their existence or their desires.

The fact that police know ahead of time that their speed detection cameras WILL catch you in the act

[No, they do not know they will catch me speeding.
They feel confident that there's a statistically positive chance that someone will be caught in the speed trap. It's not omniscience or anything at all like it.

The fact remains that, even knowing the police are there, you are still "permitted" to do something which is NOT permissible.

No.
I'm not PERMITTED to do things, i'm ABLE to do that which is not permitted. They would prevent it if they could.

I would argue that you know speeding isn't permissible in a moral sense despite the fact that your foot is free to press the accelerator pedal.

But that argument is useless. I have morals, sure. I learned them growing up, i taught them to my kids. At what point is there anything that indicates a god of any sort is necessary for this process to begin and/or continue?

- - - Updated - - -

Now, if there were no police, no high speed pursuit cars, no flashing lights, no enforceable speed limits, no jails, no objective value to the human lives of pedestrians crossing the road...

Why then would speeding (driving at whatever speed you want to suit your own selfish interests) NOT be permissible?

Where does one find an objective value to the human life of a pedestrian?
I suspect there's no such thing. Rather society constructs and shares a subjective value of human life. But if there is an objective value, how do you know? Where is it found?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or what about this?
What if there was a god, but not a law-giver?
He made the world and made us able to make our own morals.
How would that world look different than the one we find ourselves in?

 

[bilby]

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God....

I think you are committing an equivocation fallacy here.

In what sense are the police and the courts "permitting" criminals to commit crime?

The vast majority of obedient (moral) citizens know that crime is NOT permitted and they know why it is not permissible.

But when an apologist talking about atheism says "without God everything is permissible" they are challenging the atheist to explain why that would not be the case.

No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

View attachment 6600

Because whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, there is a tomorrow.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

Exactly.

What does "morality as social concordance" means, and how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

It shows how something is moral without the need of a god.

First, if by "moral" you mean "morally permissible", well, some theists are claiming that everything is permissible if God does not exist, so showing that something is permissible would be no objection. One could argue that if a moral error theory of that sort were true, moral permissibility would not instantiate, either. But that's a very contentious matter of moral semantics, which in any case the point you make does not address.
Second, if by "moral" you mean "morally obligatory", how would morality as social concordance shows that something is morally obligatory?
Third, what does "morality as social concordance" even means?
That's not a usual expression, so I'm asking what it means.