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 return to my thoughts on religion as child abuse.
no I do my share of rejecting what God has revealed as well.
All have sinned and fallen short and all of that
quote:
as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Rom 3:10-18)
and
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
(1Ti 1:15)
end quote:
peace
fifth’s world is hermetically sealed; no light can penetrate, and no light can escape. God is good because God is good because God is good, and that settles it.
And killing all the firstborn of Egypt was good because God did it and God is good. However it would not be good for us to kill all the firstborn of Egypt because God told us it wasn’t good to do that, except apparently when he does it. Which we know because of his revelation, which we know is his revelation because he said it was his revelation, and we know he said it because the revelation says it’s his revelation, and what it is too.
Get back to me when god releases tablets2.0 with the “DON’T RAPE” correction, and then I’ll be happy to test whether you’ve guessed right about “some other excuse” or not.
Until then, your hypothetical is just a pointless discussion stopper.
Ya know, it wouldn’t kill you to admit that your god did a halfass job on those old tribal commandments. It’s not as if you think those tablets are the source of your morality anyways (although the god behind those tablets might be the same god as the one you feel is behind your own sense of morals).
There’s got to be some book you can Amazon-link which explains why god so pointedly told its chosen men not to make any graven images but somehow didn’t think it important to tell them not to rape me. Surely someone (besides atheists) has noticed that peculiar omission and written some kind of theological explanation. What do you think the explanation is?
John,
There’s one tether still connecting fifth to the real world, if he would just give it a tug: the knowledge that he is fallible, as amply demonstrated by his struggles here at TSZ.
Because he is fallible, he might be mistaken about what he thinks is revelation. The possibility of being mistaken means that he would — if he were rational — want to take a close look at the actual evidence, pro and con, for the validity of the purported revelations. Upon taking this rational approach, he’d find that the whole house of cards would come crashing down, because the evidence that God has revealed anything to him is extremely poor.
In the past, he’s argued that God could reveal things to him in such a way that he could not possibly be mistaken about them. What he doesn’t get is that it’s possible for him, as a fallible human, to fool himself into thinking that God has revealed things to him in this infallible way.
keiths:
fifth:
If you’re talking about deliberate, conscious rejection, then your claim is ridiculous. You’re saying that every time someone disagrees with you on a moral issue, if you haven’t consciously rejected God’s revelation, then the other person must have done so, and is therefore deliberately lying about morality.
In other words, you’re claiming that no sincere person could possibly disagree with you. That’s laughable.
But if you admit that the rejection can be subconscious or unwitting, then you are admitting that you could be the one who is mistaken about revelation.
Either way, your claim fails.
I was happy to give you whatever context you needed, but you needed to know the fates of the entire universe in order to answer the question.
But in a few sentences we’ve gone from “stealing is wrong as god is not a thief” to “stealing is not wrong, sometimes”.
No, that does not follow at all. That’s just a cop out. Is what is objectively moral adjusted as circumstances change? Sounds to me you are joining my side of the argument…..
And you know that how?
keiths,
It’s analogous to the discussion of objective morality. Even if an objective morality did exist, without a way of determining what it is, it is useless to humans.
Even if revelation did happen, there’s no way for fallible humans to distinguish between actual revelation and personal feelings (the problem becomes worse if one believes in demonic entities).
It’s almost like theists have no advantages over atheists when it comes to questions of morality.
You could construct a morality flow chart if you wish
The first decision box would be do you consciously reject God. Most of the folks here would follow that decision path,
The next decision box would be are you following the wrong God. That path would be pretty crowded as well
The next decision box would be are you selfish and faithless and weak. I would often be on that track
The finial decision box would be has revelation been given in this matter or is it disputable. Faithful Christians could go either way on this one depending on the dilemma and we are told not to pass judgement when we are unsure.
hope that helps
Peace
One way to determine if a particular revelation is certain is ask yourself what you could know if you were wrong. If the answer is nothing at all you can be certain that you are not incorrect.
This insight is a little deep so you might have to think about it for a minute before it sinks in.
The proof that God exists is that if he did not I could know absolutely nothing at all.
peace
God has revealed the answer to “the species problem” to you, but you can’t be bothered to do anything with that information.
Tells me all I need to know about how valuable this “revelation” actually is.
What, even the atheists? Really?
No stealing is always wrong but sometimes it’s justifiable. Do you see the difference?
There is no adjustment when circumstances change, There in one and only one moral choice to any circumstance.
Do you see the difference
peace
there are no atheists really
😉
peace
I never said that.
I just have an idea as how to possibly overcome the problem. The idea will never be accepted by the likes of you because it assumes that The Christian God exists.
I’m not sure why you even care
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That happened then, did it?
Mung,
Ha! I’d get all judgemental about this low blow, but there’s nothing judgemental ‘up there’ that would make it logical for me to do so.
fifthmonarchyman,
I tend to ignore your comments since you refuse to back up your claims, but in this case I can immediately prove you wrong. I am an atheist. I lack belief in any god or gods.
Please stop making this now definitively disproven claim.
Yes, it’s true. I consciously reject god, along with all other concepts for which there is no credible evidence. At least I’m being consistent here.
You’re a funny guy Fifth. You still don’t get the irony of your claim. Your argument that you aren’t trying to define your way out of your error (by posting a definition of a god! LOL!) is no different than Sheldon Cooper ‘s argument that his use of the Infinite Sheldon card to win a game doesn’t break the rules against using homemade cards because he made the card at work. Insisting that your particular definition of “god” includes X is, BY DEFINITION, trying to use a definition to prove a point. And the fact that not all gods include that definitional quality means that your use of said definition is just arbitrary and therefore irrelevant.
I’m still laughing about this too:
LOL! Comedy gold! It just doesn’t get old!
Is it an idea or is it revealed truth?
It must be the latter, or you would not be so sure of the details (i.e. how a transitional form is just another species that sits in between the two species it is a transitional of) but now you are saying it’s just an idea.
So, which is it, revealed truth or just an idea?
Yes, I thought you’d see it that way. The same with murder and rape then. Always wrong, but sometimes justifiable.
I want to see you crack under the weight of the cross you have put upon yourself. If it’s revealed truth, you can never change your mind. Eventually you’ll have to confront that when you get something wrong that you previously thought was revealed.
Oddly, you still haven’t provided any example of said “atheist moral outrage” I can take seriously. I think you just like complaining for the sake of it, Mung.
You mean like Patrick’s insistence that Erik answer his questions? What’s there to take seriously? And why should you care? It’s up to Erik to decide whether he wants to answer and support his assertions. If he doesn’t, ehh…it’s an internet discussion board. A few dozen people will dismiss Erik as misguided or stupid or naive or whatever and Erik likely won’t care and…as far as I can tell…neither will you. Where’s the moral outrage exactly?
Matthew 11:27
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
How ’bout that Fifth? You the Son? Kinda doubt it…
You gonna insist that the Son chose to reveal all to you? Big claim…kinda doubt that too, particularly given some of the amusing statements you’ve made. Something tells me there’s a lot about this supposed “god” you don’t know a thing about…
Please don’t say or imply that atheists are not really atheists. It really pisses them off.
We’re trying to decrease the amount of moral outrage, not increase it.
Thank you
Are you addressing this to fifthmonarchyman?
If so, you’re welcome.
Just curious, Mung, but what’s with your moral outrage? And why are you trying to evade dealing with your obvious moral outrage? Why not just come out and say what’s bugging you?
You appealed to the rules of the site as the basis for moral outrage. As I explained to Patrick, this argument relies on the existence of meta-rules. IOW, your argument has an unstated premise about game-playing and rule following. You don’t answer the question as to the moral basis of those meta-rules.
As far as the football analogy, it is usually a benefit when the other team get’s penalized for rule infractions. I don’t see players on the team benefiting from the infraction getting outraged. When a player commits a foul and doesn’t get penalized the referees become the object of the moral outrage, not the players.
Also, many of the objections I see here have nothing to do with the rules of the site and whether or not they are being followed.
I don’t see that your answer really addresses the actual source. I obviously disagree that it has to do with the actual rules of this site.
Apparently, it is much thicker in the middle, as well.
That’s as relevant as anything we might get out of FMM.
Glen Davidson
I see two questions and a hypothetical scenario. I don’t see any answers or any argument. Is this what we should continue to expect to see from you going forward?
What is the problem with asking questions? You just asked one.
As a matter of fact, I speculate that the majority of mung posts are questions, many of them snide.
Mung,
It’s rude and against the rule of “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith. For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.”
We absolutely love it when atheists accuse God of being immoral. At least those of us who love irony do. And I do love irony.
How about “biological automatons”?
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Honestly, that ability to dehumanize others combined with his claim to believe whatever he wants would make me not surprised to see WJM on the news.
Mung,
You’re confused. That was Moral, because God did it.
You’ve stated previously that you could care less about the site rules haven’t you?
As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
Well, we could try doing it your way.
Good has an objective existence apart from God. But what makes that good. ok, so what makes that good, good? ok, so what makes that good, good, good? ok, so what makes that good, good, good, good?
ad infinitum
You may not like our way, but your way is pointless. Futile. Irrational.
Why do atheists care if they are at a moral disadvantage?
But theists don’t claim to have an advantage. We say you’re as aware of moral realities as we are.
If you’re not moral realists what are you?
If you don’t believe in objective moral values what do you believe in, and why?
Mung,
What does that even mean? Where can I find “good” objectively existing?
“Good” in this context just seems to mean “in accordance with a moral code.” Since both atheists and theists choose their own moral codes, I don’t see what point you’re making.
Well, first off, the way you describe is indeed pointless, futile, and irrational, but it seems no less so than fifth’s (your?) approach (though no more so either, being almost identical). If you agree that the approach above is futile, how does it differ from yours?
Second, I don’t think anyone is making the claim you articulate. Certainly I’m not. There is no secure, objective basis for morality. I was pointing out only that, as Plato showed, God can’t be such a basis. What we have is an insecure, subjective basis, provided to us by evolution. We humans have evolved to be social, and sociality demands certain rules and habits of mind, which some of our relatives also display. Chief among these, I would claim, is empathy, or as you might think of it, “Do unto others…”.
That you can take seriously. That’s rich. Why should I care whether or not you take it seriously? And if you don’t take it seriously why should I waste my time on you?
Mung,
There are theists on this very board claiming that their morality is “objective”, despite choosing it themselves just as every atheist does.
We are legion.
There is nothing that characterizes all atheists other than a lack of belief in a god or gods. We all choose our moral codes for ourselves, just as theists do.
I choose to behave in ways that support what I value in my life. I try not to “believe” but to hold provisional positions subject to change based on new evidence.
We’re still waiting.
I’m not aware of any atheists that do care. I’m also not aware of any who are at a moral disadvantage to theists. In fact, if polls are to be believed, it would seem that on many moral issues atheists are at a distinct advantage.
Ahh…but most theists include the erroneous assumption that atheists are aware of theistic moral realities. Few atheists are aware of or care about theistic issues at all.
Well I’m not, but as far as I know only KN has claimed to be one. Perhaps others will chime in…
Societal-based moral concept adoption based on both the stability needs of the societies and the cultural desires (and development) as the society evolves. I accept this because that’s what a study of the history of moral code development across civilizations demonstrates.
I like how Lizzie put it:
You asked the question. I provided a reason I cannot answer said question. If you don’t care about your clarity or the validity of your questions, what can I say…?
Maybe Mung will start a thread on free will, thanks for your input.
keiths:
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
keiths:
fifth, do you stand by that absurd claim?