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.
I should have known better than to think we’d get actual answers from keiths, or even an argument.
Just more questions.
God does not have “feelings” about right and wrong.
So if you’re going to use that as some sort of premise in an argument it needs to be true. I deny the truth of your premise. Continue.
that is just what Adam and Eve did in the garden and you know how that turned out
peace
Plato as far as we know never encountered claims from followers of the Christian God.
You know this how exactly? be specific
The definition of God includes the attribute of perfect objective goodness. This is “not defining my way out of it”
Being the basis of an objective morality is simply part of what it means to be God.
peace
Let’s remove God from the equation. Let’s pretend we’re all atheists.
No more arguments about objective morality. No more being judgmental. No more moral outrage. no more name calling. Paradise.
Now let some of us go back to being theists.
All of a sudden all the atheists change their tune.
Why?
I think you have it exactly backwards it’s the atheist who presumes to judge the goodness of God that is what the “problem of evil” is all about
peace
Mung,
Dafuq???
So? He ought not think so?
Because you think your personal cult is the one true one?
You people crack me up.
How about the seemingly arbitrary claims of “atheist moral outrage”? How about silly statements like this:
It’s hard to take seriously people who insist they are right by fiat.
Sure it’s wrong but it’s a justifiable wrong depending on the context.
You know lessor of two evils and all that. That’s why omniscience is necessary for objective morality
You remember context that’s the thing you argued was not necessary when you were pushing the trolley problem.
peace
It’s a thought experiment. ala keiths.
What does the fact that some of us are theists have to do with how atheists view morality and the moral claims they make on others?
Other than calling the theists hypocrites, I mean.
Basically, we’re all trying to get back to paradise. 🙂
We know it’s there. somewhere.
Words have meanings. You can’t ask us to assume a square circle for the sake of argument.
Circles are circular.
By the same token God is God and that includes the attribute of objective goodness.
It may seem unfair to say that circles can’t be squares but that is just the way it is.
peace
Yes. But if you had stolen it to feed yourself…
Mung:
I suppose it was inevitable that Mung would end up fighting the Bible again.
And if they were in there I bet you could find some other excuse.
Indeed. That’s what the OP is about. Atheists projecting their moral outrage on others and insisting they are right by fiat. It’s hard to take them seriously.
I’m offering them an opportunity to explain why they ought to be taken seriously. They certainly act as if they ought to be taken seriously.
Mung,
True that. It does cover the important stuff:
“28 “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels[f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.”
“33 “If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.”
“18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
0_o
Do you know what transliteration means yet?
After that last gaffe of yours I can understand why you don’t feel like you can be certain about anything. You certainly sounded certain of yourself.
No matter. I had a good laugh. Thank you.
You don’t even have a premise yet, keiths. But I bet you have a conclusion, and one you’re certain of. Is it that God cannot possibly be the source of morality?
God cannot possibly know right from wrong because God might be a brain in a vat. Therefore there can be no objective morality. Something along those lines?
He can know this because he is God
God knows everything by definition. That is what omniscience means
I’m a traditional orthodox Christian, I believe that freewill and God’s absolute foreknowledge of his creatures choices are not mutually exclusive concepts.
In fact as a Calvinist and I believe that predestination and freewill are totally compatible.
peace
Mung,
You say:
The Bible says that God does have feelings — strong ones — about right and wrong, as every competent Christian knows.
Who is wrong, you or the Bible?
fifth,
You disagree with Mung on this, correct?
My money is on both.
quote:
“For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accomodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness”
end quote:
John Calvin
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No bad students, only bad teachers.
Now that’s funny. Fifth is afraid to say that he agrees with the Bible, against Mung.
I think our resident theists want to have it both ways. They can be mystical when it’s convenient, and historical when that’s convenient.
keiths, to Mung:
Rich:
I usually add that option, but in this case it really does seem to be an either-or.
If God doesn’t exist then he doesn’t have feelings, and Mung is right for a change:
So? How are those claims less susceptible to Plato’s arguments than the claims of followers of Zeus?
Again I refer you to Euthyphro. It applies as well to one god as to another.
You are once again defining your way out of it by declaring that what you do isn’t defining your way out of it. Imprimus, you have just defined god; secundus, there is no reason to suppose that the entity you define exists; tertius, if he does exist he is subject to the Euthyphro argument, which you have not addressed. In order to recognize that god has the attribute of perfect objective goodness, you have to be able to recognize perfect objective goodness, and that implies the existence of an external criterion. Otherwise god is forced to swallow his own tail.
fifth,
If I define myself as being perfectly and objectively good, will you allow me to dictate your morality to you?
I believe that Mung was speaking of God in his atemporal aseity as apposed to his temporal imminence .
hence the quote.
If you disagree that that was what he was doing why don’t you just ask him to clarify.
peace
Fifth,
The Bible is unambiguous on this point. Do you disagree with Mung or with the Bible?
That is exactly what you do when you reject God. The problem is you are not perfectly good as you yourself know. You want to be God but you are not
That realization is a big part of the purpose of the moral law that God has placed on your heart.
Peace
PS there but for the grace of God go I
fifth,
Exactly. Defining myself as perfectly and objectively good doesn’t make me perfectly and objectively good.
Likewise, defining God as perfectly and objectively good doesn’t make him perfectly and objectively good.
I already explained this God…. is….. Good.
Good is defined as conformance to God’s moral nature. It is not a standard existing outside of him and it’s not simply what he desires.
It’s what and who he is
You are not the Judge
God’s existence is not dependent on reasons.
He is the very foundation on which all reason rests.
God has the attribute of perfect objective goodness and he graciously reveals himself to me.
I am not the judge. and there is no standard that sits above God. That is what separates Yahweh from Zeus
God…. is……. Good
peace
Hey Mung, you asked in your first post of this thread:
My response:
You asked the question, and mine is a direct response. Your thoughts?
My, my.
Defining a square to be circular does not make it circular.
However a circle is circular and God is God.
by definition a circle is circular
and by definition God…..is…..Good
You might argue that circles don’t exist but you can’t argue their circularity
by the same token
You might try and argue that God does not exist but you can’t argue his Godness ie goodness
peace
fifth,
So whatever God considers moral, no matter how hideous and evil to our eyes, is objectively moral, in your view?
Suppose that tomorrow you discover that God wants all of humanity to suffer grievously, and that he considers it your moral obligation to inflict as much of that suffering as possible. Will you feel morally obligated to obey him?
Goodness is not what God considers moral.
Goodness is who and what he is. God can not do evil by definition.
This is like saying
suppose that you discover tomorrow that circles are squares.. it’s a nonsense question.
There is simply no danger of this, God is good by definition.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
No, it isn’t. Your knowledge isn’t perfect, right? You could be wrong about what God considers to be moral.
So again, I ask: If you discover that God considers it your objective moral duty to inflict grievous suffering on as much of humanity as possible, will you assent? Will you consider it a moral obligation?
If you have said anything there (and I’m beginning to doubt that you did), you picked Plato’s option that something is good because god says so. In that case it would be good to boil Belgian babies in their own urine if god said so. And in fact anything we now consider evil or wrong would be good if god said so. Further, you can’t say that god would never tell us to do that, because that would require having a standard of good outside god. Is that correct? Also, you should know that a claim doesn’t become more true or more convincing if you put ellipses between its words.
What makes you think that there is a standard that sits above Zeus?
John,
Molybdenum twinkies? Belgian babies boiled in their own urine?
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
ever hear of revelation? God has revealed his nature and attributes to all of us (Romans 1:29)
We all know that those who murder or inflict malicious harm on others are not doing God’s will (Romans 1:29-32)
This is simply a nonsense question. Not only do all we know with certainty that God would not command this but he has revealed himself even more clearly to me through the scripture .
quote:
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
(3Jn 1:11)
and
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Mat 5:44-45)
and
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
(Luk 6:35-36)
etc etc etc.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Sorry, but who exactly was it that killed all the first-born of Egypt? Was that “good”?
More importantly, how do you know that your revelation is true? Was that too revealed to you? Is it revelations all the way down?
fifth,
That’s pitiful, fifth.
God revealed morality to you, but not to all the other people who claim revelation but disagree with you on moral issues?
And you can’t possibly be mistaken about revelation even though you think they are?
Aren’t you a special snowflake.
John, to fifth:
And then repeatedly hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he’d have an excuse to inflict plague after plague on the Egyptians, all for bragging rights:
No I am specifically not saying that
Something is not Good because God says so.
God is Good.
Good is who and what God is.
not at all see my response to keiths
No I can say that God would never tell us to do that because God is Good and he has revealed himself to us;
On the other hand you have no way of saying that your own subjective moral temperament won’t tell you that is is right to do these things tomorrow
can you?
peace
Yahweh did and yes it was good.
Do you have any objective basis at all for saying it was not good? If so please present it.
peace
no God revealed morality to all of us. Some of us choose to reject what he has revealed
peace
fifth,
You think that everyone who disagrees with you on a moral issue has rejected what God has revealed, while you have dutifully accepted it?
Again, what a special snowflake you are. Your delusion is worse than I thought.