Any takers: Hired Gun's view of atheism and morality?

[Clutch]

I challenge Hired Gun, or anyone else if they're interested, to debate the view presented in this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1097064) thread.

Specifically, the proposition to be debated is:

It is logically inconsistent to make moral judgements while believing that there exist no gods.

The structure of the debate would be this: Hired Gun will go first and argue the positive. I will argue the negative. The debate, I suggest, should last four rounds.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Clutch
I challenge Hired Gun, or anyone else if they're interested, to debate the view presented in this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1097064) thread.

Specifically, the proposition to be debated is:

It is logically inconsistent to make moral judgements while believing that there exist no gods.

The structure of the debate would be this: Hired Gun will go first and argue the positive. I will argue the negative. The debate, I suggest, should last four rounds.

Hi Clutch,

I mentioned this challenge to Hired Gun in an email but the proposition didn't really interest her. But she said that she would be willing to debate a proposition like this:

"An atheist can't logically determine that murdering an innocent toddler is morally wrong."

Jason

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Nightshade
Hi Clutch,

I mentioned this challenge to Hired Gun in an email but the proposition didn't really interest her. But she said that she would be willing to debate a proposition like this:

"An atheist can't logically determine that murdering an innocent toddler is morally wrong."

Jason Well, she's wise to do the fancy footwork. :)

I might be interested in this debate, but I'd have to know what she means by "logically determine". Following merely from the laws of logic? It sounds like another way of saying that atheists can't solve the Is-Ought problem. But even were one to grant this, it's not very interesting -- since theists can't either.

That is, the problem is to give a good answer to the question, "How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?"

An atheist could certainly give lousy answers to the question, no problem at all. So an atheist is in no worse a predicament than a theist who answers: By positing a god! So I don't see Hired Gun's proposition as capturing any interesting distinction between theists and atheists.

Indeed, many or most atheists would very likely agree with HG's proposition, on the grounds that moral facts are not logically determined in any case. Hence the real question is, What does HG take her proposition to entail, or implicate? It seems to me that she (mistakenly) takes it as tantamount to: Atheists are inconsistent in making moral judgements. Which is why my proposition is less ambiguous, and especially, less open to equivocation or bait-and-switch tactics.

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Originally posted by Nightshade

"An atheist can't logically determine that murdering an innocent toddler is morally wrong."

If an atheist can't logically determine it then nobody can.

DC

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
"An atheist can't logically determine that murdering an innocent toddler is morally wrong."


How about, "Theists can have a logical basis for opposing the murder of innocent toddlers, but atheists can't."

crc

[Albert Cipriani]

It is logically consistent to make moral judgments tho one be an atheist. Only if one conceived of morality as the arbitrary whim of God could the proposed debate proposition be affirmed. Ergo, Clutch is correct. Too bad. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[kelsos]

A theist of Biblical flavor cannot logically say "murdering a toddler is wrong." There's just too many verses where the Bible's god commands exactly this. While the theist may feel it to be wrong, he would not be logical in claiming it's morally wrong to murder a toddler: "Nor shalt thou shew mercy upon them."

Atheists have no logical problem with morals.

Are you serious about this debate?