This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
How about straw man?
Accident implies no regulating process.
Evolution involves feedback.
But I do have a standard for judging what is wrong. The standard is: How does it affect human wellbeing?
That is my standard, so you are demonstrably wrong.
I think you are confused that questioning your version of God is openly rejecting God. It is interesting that in your view divine revelation of truth is reserved for those whose already believe rather than for those who theoretically would have the most need of His truth.
No offense taken fmm, you obviously have more experience in the Bible plus the sovereign Lord and Lawmaker of the universe revealing the Truth, I concede your expertise, briefly if the Ten Commandments are not moral guidelines ,what are they?
Phoodoo’s standard is the radio in his head.
phoodoo,
It has already been discussed, and you already made it clear that you weren’t interested in – what – humpty dumpty bullshit games. You don’t sound like someone who is interested in characterising the process more accurately. Accidents it is, if it please you sire.
Kantian Naturalist,
Well, I guess there’s a 3-way equivocation, and further confusion from a plurality of norms, so I’m not sure how to answer. I’d identify 3 ‘things’ one could mean by ‘universal morality’:
a) Universal possession of norm X(,Y,Z)
b) Universal acknowledgement of norm X(,Y,Z)
c) The universal practice of labelling some behaviours ‘right’ and others ‘wrong’, by oneself and by others.
I don’t think absence of b negates a in principle, no, though I see a practical difficulty in establishing a without b. Do you have a specific example in mind?
Then why are the atheists here so insistent on making it about what other people ought to do?
If it’s what you want for yourself, why is it binding on others? And why do you act as if it ought to be binding on others if it’s not objective?
Mung,
Why not ask Bill about reciprocation.
You said that the ten commandments “were an effort to preload moral guidelines” this is incorrect
We could spend years discussing what the Ten Commandments are and are not there is simply no way to do it “briefly”
If you are looking for general “preloaded” moral guidelines you might try these on for size
quote:
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Mat 22:37-40)
end quote
peace
They are the basis for the covenant between God and Israel. It’s my understanding that Jews do not hold that they apply to Gentiles. For that I think you have to go back to the covenant with Noah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm
I have repeatedly said that God reveals himself to you so that you have no excuse. (Romans chap 1)
You already have more than enough rope to hang yourself. To give you more would be wasteful.
Pearls before swine and all that
peace
Thanks Mung
I was going to say exactly that but decided it would be a rabbit trail and potential derailment point.
You handled it beautifully
peace
Mung, can you cite an example of anyone here trying to force our personal moral code on you? I suppose it’s possible.
fifth,
Oh, the irony.
This is what the fuss is about. If atheists would just explain this one thing the debate would be over and we could move on to more interesting stuff
peace
By imposing I assume you mean atheists would like you to stop imposing your morality on everyone else.
Is there something objectively wrong with what you think I’m doing?
If not why act as if there is?
In your worldview why is it wrong to impose morality on others? and why should I care what you think?
I mean no offense by these questions i really am interested in your thought process
peace
Peace, you swine.
Because it’s not personal, it’s just that you’re swine. Geez, it’s like it’s not all in good faith or something…
Glen Davidson
Mung:
fifth:
If I were to explain this yet again, would you guys listen and actually ponder my explanation before rushing back to your tired preconceptions?
It’s a metaphor
I suppose I should have added
“There but for the grace of God go I”
I apologize
peace
I for one would.
Would you allow followup questions so I can understand where you are coming from beyond a surface level?
Would you allow the possibility that other peoples understanding is not just “tired preconceptions”?
peace
Euthyphro?
Is it good because God prefers it or does God prefer it because it’s good?
it’s a false dilemma
God ……is……. good and ……it’s……. just the way he is.
😉
An example
Stealing is wrong because God is not a thief
peace
Mung:
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
Sure.
Not if you keep falling back on “it’s subjective, so you can’t apply it to other people.” That’s a tired preconception that you should have abandoned long ago.
Okay, fifth, let’s start here:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God exists and has moral standards. You think that God’s morality is objective morality. But why? If my feelings about right and wrong are merely subjective, then what makes God’s feelings about right and wrong objective?
Because God’s opinions are objective by definition.
That’s what the word means. God is the sovereign Lord and Lawgiver.
His opinions are the correct opinions simply because they are his opinions.
God…. is….. good
Conformance to God’s nature is precisely what it means to be good
If all these things are not true of the God you are assuming you have conjured up a strawman of your own imagination and not the Christian God.
I hope that helps
peace
Indeed!
keiths,
Um…, because he created the entire universe?
How many worlds full of living being have you created again?
I hereby define my own opinion as objective.
It does not follow, by logic, that because God created the universe therefore his moral opinions are objectively true.
Please derive that conclusion for me, I’d like to see you try.
P1. God created the entire universe.
P2. God has moral opinions.
P3. …
C1. Therefore God’s opinions are objective, not subjective.
Please fill in the missing premises. As it stands, it is patently invalid. A non-sequitur fallacy.
Rumraket,
-God created the concept and existence of morality.
-God’s opinion about what is moral and what isn’t is correct, in the world where he created what is correct and what isn’t.
-God’s determination of morality is objectively right.
That’s an invalid argument. The conclusion doesn’t follow.
ROFL.
It’s not even an argument, really. You don’t specify which are premises and which are conclusions. I can sort of guess that the 3rd sentence is your conclusion, right?
Also, your 2nd sentence, I take it to be a premise, right? What does it mean, as it reads it doesn’t make correct grammatical sense. Can you try to rewrite P2 so it’s more clear?
I find a couple of things remarkable about these arguments.
Th proponents seem to know a lot more about god than anyone else. They seem to know which scriptures are correct and which are not. This seems characteric of all believers, not just Christians.
They assert their competence to judge god. That seems a bit arrogant.
They leave open the question of how one knows how to judge the goodness of god.
Yeah as I showe here some of them even go so far as to think they know what god would do/create. As if they have even the slightest clue what an omnipotent supernatural being would spend it’s “time” doing.
“This world looks like it was created by God”. Really? How the fuck DO you know?
fifthmonarchyman,
Sorry, but Plato took care of your claims, and you can’t just define your way out of it. God cannot be the basis of an objective morality. (And let us also note that god is the basis of a great number of mutually exclusive objective moralities; you just happen to think that your personal cult is the one
true one.)
I would say that having a moral standard, i.e. having a sense of right and wrong, is intrinsically connected to having a desire for the world to become more ‘right’ and less ‘wrong’. I don’t see how one could possess the one and not the other (unless one thinks the world is already perfectly ‘right’). It is often others who are seen to stand in the way of a better world, hence the urge to influence their behaviour.
fG
I think most people want to influence or control the boundaries of what other people are allowed to do.
The difference between motives and sources of such notions is unimportant.
What is important is how we go about implementing our wishes.
History is largely the story of how this process has evolved over the centuries.
How can your God know it is a waste of an infinite resource if that knowledge requires a knowledge of the outcome of free will?
And yet, as discussed, nobody can actually agree on what that opinion actually is with regard to anything at all.
Given that as you think objective morality exists already, you’d spend less time arguing that it exists (duh, you know it does) and more time finding out what it actually consists of. And, you know, doing something about it.
But if you could have you would have and so here we are. You attempting to prove something exists by the most indirect means possible. God created everything, everything includes morality, god options define morality and therefore morality is objective.
It’s somewhat telling you don’t actually attempt to prove it exists by some kind of reference to the thing itself. It’s much like claiming the Mona Lisa must exist because a cup of tea is cold. Somewhat arbitrary and indirect.
God isn’t a driver of cars, is driving cars wrong?
Say I lived in an oppressive regime and due to my opinions regarding free expression, food was used as a weapon against my family.
I stole bread to feed them when they were starving.
Was that wrong?
If there is no immediate, direct, and consistent consequence for dismissing this “god’s” moral code and, more importantly, learning from said consequence, then said “god’s” moral code is as valid as any human’s (and less so in many cases). I’ll pass, thanks.
Might I mention that Fifth’s insistence that he knows all this stuff about god is a delusional fantasy.
Besides, I have a god that created Fifth’s god, and I can prove it.
Of course it’s NOT wrong, which is why every single objective-moralist proponent is full of shit. Stealing is wrong, except when it’s not wrong, which doesn’t fit so easily on a stone tablet but which does accord with our real world and our humane feelings for the worth of people’s lives over people’s mere possessions.
I wont go so far as to hope that their own children starve to death while they smother their own human empathy underneath their useless and destructive “objective” moral code. But I will say I hope they each have a wake-up moment which is not quite so tragic and which allows them to renew themselves as decent humans.
keiths:
phoodoo:
No. Here’s a thought experiment I used with William:
What do you think, phoodoo? Is it immoral for the inhabitants to refuse to perform pornographically for their creator?
Not even for the Jewish people?
Actually fifth that would have been helpful, thanks mung for the info
You’d think god might have noticed that only scholars could properly follow his instructions.
But it does explain why no one success follows the commandments.
petrushka,
The fact that “Don’t rape.” and “Don’t enslave.” aren’t in the list tells me all I need to know about its quality.