Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)

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.

1,378 thoughts on “Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)

  1. fifthmonarchyman: circularity is implicit in all arguments.
    If you disagree tell me how you know stuff

    peace

    Fifth’s premise here is erroneous. I don’t need to “know stuff” to make an argument about something. I only need “I’m hungry.”

  2. William J. Murray: It’s a really profound argument you’ve got. It shines a light on the fact that all any of us have, in the end, is faith in our presuppositions.

    Fmm doesn’t have faith in his presuppositions, he knows they are true because the presupposition revealed the presupposition is true to him. In fact the presupposition revealed what to presuppose, thus rendering the presupposition redundant I suppose.

  3. newton: Fmm doesn’t have faith in his presuppositions, he knows they are true because the presupposition revealed the presupposition is true to him. In fact the presupposition revealed what to presuppose, thus rendering the presupposition redundant I suppose.


    A presuppositionist expressed this belief
    That presupposing a loving god was such a relief
    Yet he couldn’t find his hat
    So instead he wore a cat
    Which the presupposed god thought not so chic

  4. Robin: same problem as the previous parsing: that all things are therefore good by definition (back to the sex, drugs, and rocknroll…and the genocide of everyone I personally dislike because…god is good…rinse and repeat)

    Or even the genocide of everyone you personally like, since that too must be in accordance with everything coming from god which is good by definition.

    Judas with his kiss, the Temple Guards of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphus, Pilate, the Roman soldiers — all of these men are surely in heaven with god as a reward for their faithful service to god’s Earthly mission of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. If no arrest, no trial, no death … then no miracle and no salvation.

    How can any christian possibly be outraged at Judas or the Jews?

    They all were made by god, and since god is all good, and cannot make anything not good (by definition) then therefore their very existence is good (being from god) and as well, their every action is necessary for god’s good plan for humanity’s redemption, and therefore they are doubly good. Saints, no doubt!

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Not in my worldview.

    But I’m asking about yours

    Is it possible in your worldview for an omnipotent God to reveal stuff to you in such a way as you can know it even it you refuse to believe in him?

    Interesting framing, the lack of belief in something is not the same as refusing to believe , it may just be the poor quality of the pro arguments.

    In my worldview an omnipotent being can do by definition anything logically possible, the original question was” is possible for an omnipotent God to say something in such a way that I can know that the message is from him?”

    No, just because something is possible does not mean occurred. Knowledge would require faith and would be provisional.

    Though if revelation provided the powerball winning numbers I would refuse to disbelieve.

    Fmm to Robin:
    You can’t get actual knowledge from a hypothetical God.

    Then one must believe before revelation not as a result of it.

  6. newton:

    Fmm to Robin:
    You can’t get actual knowledge from a hypothetical God.

    Then one must believe before revelation not as a result of it.

    Funny that, no?

    I’m beginning to think that it’s impossible for Fifth to post any words without being ironic. I wonder if that phenomenon is really some some obscure, yet profound truth from his god…

  7. hotshoe_: Or even the genocide of everyone you personally like, since that too must be in accordance with everything coming from god which is good by definition.

    Judas with his kiss, the Temple Guards of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphus, Pilate, the Roman soldiers — all of these men are surely in heaven with god as a reward for their faithful service to god’s Earthly mission of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. If no arrest, no trial, no death … then no miracle and no salvation.

    How can any christian possibly be outraged at Judas or the Jews?

    They all were made by god, and since god is all good, and cannot make anything not good (by definition) then therefore their very existence is good (being from god) and as well, their every action is necessary for god’s good plan for humanity’s redemption, and therefore they are doubly good.Saints, no doubt!

    Hey! Yeah…that’s right!

    Where’s Phoodoo? Maybe he can explain why we aren’t all doing absolutely nothing given that – according to Fifth’s logic – we are in a world that is all good!

  8. Robin: Unless you can dismiss all the claims of all religious works and substantiate why your particular claims hold truth while those do not, your arguments fail by definition.

    1) I did tentatively dismiss all the claims of all non-christian religious works did you miss it? I did so based on revelation.
    2) I did substantiate why my God hold’s truth while other deities do not. ie he is God and they are not.

    If you want a more specific answer I need to to pick a deity so we can compare

    Robin: And I have no reason to accept it.

    If God does not exist you have no “reason” whatsoever. In fact all reasoning would be impossible. It’s the Christian God or absurdity.

    If you disagree tell me how you know

    Robin: I provided specific quotes from authoritative sources on the nature of said deities, noting specifically that ALL of them are ALMIGHTY

    They can’t all be almighty. Who would win in an arm wrestle match?
    If they all claim to be almighty we can say definitively all most all of them are in error

    Robin: He is perennial. Narayana is Brahma

    So are you postulating Narayana as your deity of choice? How exactly does he differ from Yahweh?

    peace

  9. Robin: I have no presuppositions. None at all. My entire world view and survival is based on, “I’m hungry” and nothing else.

    1) How exactly do you know this?
    2) Be spesific. How do you know that “I’m hungry” is not a presupposition

    peace

  10. Neil Rickert: All purely logical arguments are circular. But empirical arguments break the circle by giving reality an input.

    how do you know this? Is this assertion based on an empirical argument?

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman,

    If God does not exist you have no “reason” whatsoever. In fact all reasoning would be impossible. It’s the Christian God or absurdity.

    You keep making this claim but never supporting it. Until you do it is effectively content free.

  12. Reciprocating Bill: Which leaves FMM with presuppositions that he holds by faith (because in the end that is all he has), and admittedly circular reasoning therefrom.

    Faith is not the reason I hold to my presuppositions.
    Faith is simply the confidence I have in the faithful God who reveals himself.

    On the other hand since God exists I “have” knowledge and all the things that go with it.

    Reciprocating Bill: Let’s talk about something else.

    If it weren’t for the obsession of folks on your side we would have already done so

    peace

  13. Robin: Conclusion: Morals must come from god. (This doesn’t follow either as Inference 2 is erroneous.

    That is not my claim at all.
    Morals can come from anywhere.

    Objectively good moral opinion can only come from an omniscient God who is good

    peace

  14. Robin: Given the above, who, other than god creates anything?

    No one

    Is it impossible for a being to make a bad moral choice with out creating something?

    How do you know this?

    peace

  15. Robin: I don’t need to “know stuff” to make an argument about something. I only need “I’m hungry.”

    how do you know this?

    peace

  16. hotshoe_: How can any christian possibly be outraged at Judas or the Jews?

    I’m not. I think that people who blame Jews for the death of Christ are ignorant.

  17. newton: Fmm to Robin:
    You can’t get actual knowledge from a hypothetical God.

    Then one must believe before revelation not as a result of it.

    You don’t have to believe but God has to actually exist before he can reveal stuff to you.

    peace

  18. Patrick: You keep making this claim but never supporting it. Until you do it is effectively content free.

    how do you know this?

    hint the answer is in the question

    peace

  19. Robin: according to Fifth’s logic – we are in a world that is all good!

    It (like everything) depends on your perspective.

    peace

  20. Mung: I think that people who blame Jews for the death of Christ are ignorant.

    right they need to read their Bible

    quote:

    Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
    (Isa 53:10)

    end quote:

    peace

  21. Mung:

    hotshoe_: How can any christian possibly be outraged at Judas or the Jews?

    I’m not. I think that people who blame Jews for the death of Christ are ignorant.

    Well, that’s good to hear, and not surprising – you’re almost always better than your co-religionists.

    Too bad you and the other decent theists have so little influence over the christian demagogues and rabble.

  22. Robin: Funny that, no?

    I’m beginning to think that it’s impossible for Fifth to post any words without being ironic. I wonder if that phenomenon is really some some obscure, yet profound truth from his god…

    I think a good argument could be made for an ironic God.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: Faith is not the reason I hold to my presuppositions.
    Faith is simply the confidence I have in the faithful God who reveals himself

    Confidence? Sounds subjective.

  24. fifthmonarchyman,

    You keep making this claim but never supporting it. Until you do it is effectively content free.

    how do you know this?

    Observation. Empirical evidence. You demonstrably keep making this claim and demonstrably never support it.

  25. Mung: I’m not. I think that people who blame Jews for the death of Christ are ignorant.

    Perhaps they have been revealed to

  26. newton: Confidence? Sounds subjective.

    It is.
    Faith is my subjective response to God’s faithfulness. Faith is a gift from God but it’s something I subjectively feel

    peace

  27. hotshoe_: Too bad you and the other decent theists have so little influence over the christian demagogues and rabble.

    You know how they say that time heals all wounds? I wonder if time exposes all idiocies.

    We can hope. 🙂

    Wasn’t Jesus supposed to return in 1987?

  28. fifthmonarchyman: 1) I did tentatively dismiss all the claims of all non-christian religious works did you miss it? I did so based on revelation.

    LOL! ‘my god told me that all those non-christian gods are fake! So you know…I know the truth…because…um…my god told me…because he’s not fake!’ Nothing absurd about that…LOL!

    2) I did substantiate why my God hold’s truth while other deities do not. ie he is God and they are not.

    ROTFLMAO! Yet, you can’t seem to demonstrate my deity isn’t God…or that yours is. Funny that!

    If you want a more specific answer I need to to pick a deity so we can compare.

    Ehhh…’fraid my deities already fucked your god, so there’s really nothing to compare…

    If God does not exist you have no “reason” whatsoever. In fact all reasoning would be impossible. It’s the Christian God or absurdity.

    Says you. Ooooo! I’m scared…not. My gods all say your “god” not only does not exist, but that you are full of nothing but horse hockey and nonsense. Seems the evidence indicates they’re right too. And oddly, your “god” has got no retort against their accusations. One dead god you got there…

    If you disagree tell me how you know

    See above. But do feel free to actually demonstrate where all my gods are wrong. Oh…and unless they all tell me you’ve succeeded, I’ll know you’re still full of BS.

    They can’t all be almighty. Who would win in an arm wrestle match?

    Fehh…it would be a tie…

    If they all claim to be almighty we can say definitively all most all of them are in error

    Maybe, but you can’t seem to prove which one is lying. Therefore I must assume that at least one of them is telling the truth since the odds are in their favor. I mean, it is…like…4000 deities to your one mythical one. I don’t have much of a choice but to go with the probability of one that is real…

    So are you postulating Narayana as your deity of choice? How exactly does he differ from Yahweh?

    Peace

    Oh please Fifth…you’re going to have to do better than that. For example, whether I postulate Narayana is “my” deity is irrelevant; unless you can show that your puny deity is better, then it’s irrelevant what I actually believe.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: 1) How exactly do you know this?

    What’s this “know” you are referring to? I can’t process that. “I’m hungry” requires no pre-cognition. It is just a label for a given state compared to another state.

    2) Be spesific. How do you know that “I’m hungry” is not a presupposition

    peace

    That question is meaningless. What is this “presupposition” of which you speak? I can only process states of sensory perception.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: That is not my claim at all.
    Morals can come from anywhere.

    Objectively good moral opinion can only come from an omniscient God who is good

    peace

    “Welcome to your future in robotics!” LOL!

  31. fifthmonarchyman: No one

    Is it impossible for a being to make a bad moral choice with out creating something?

    Of course…humans do that all the time!

    How do you know this?

    peace

    Observation. LOL!

  32. fifthmonarchyman: It (like everything) depends on your perspective.

    peace

    Nope…sorry. Not according to your previous claims. Where’s Phoodo? I what to know why everyone isn’t just lying on the ground.

  33. Robin: I have no presuppositions. None at all. My entire world view and survival is based on, “I’m hungry” and nothing else.

    Well, fortunately for you, your posting here at TSZ has no relationship to your world view.

  34. Robin: whether I postulate Narayana is “my” deity is irrelevant; unless you can show that your puny deity is better,

    I can’t show you where Yahweh is better unless you tell me how your deity is different than Yahweh.

    Simply saying that you God is better is not enough you have to say how it’s different.
    If your God is the same as Yahweh then your God is Yahweh and I win. So how is your chosen deity different than the Christin God?

    Robin: whether I postulate Narayana is “my” deity is irrelevant;

    I guess you could postulate that a God who is exactly like the Christian God and who you don’t believe in could reveal stuff to you.

    But if you did so you would just be agreeing with me

    😉

    If you postulate a God who is not exactly like the Christian God and who you don’t believe in could reveal stuff to you, you need to explain how he is different and why you think he is capable of revealing stuff but don’t think he is worthy of your acceptance.

    peace

  35. Robin: I can only process states of sensory perception.

    Exactly what state of sensory perception lead you to this conclusion?

    IOW how do you know this?

    peace

  36. Robin: I what to know why everyone isn’t just lying on the ground.

    It’s not about you and you can’t always get what you want.

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: You don’t have to believe but God has to actually exist before he can reveal stuff to you.

    peace

    Misunderstood. Do you hear an actual voice or is it like a clarity?

  38. keiths: I think that cruelty to animals is a moral issue, because I think that the well-being of animals matters.

    keiths decides what is moral based on what he thinks matters. What he thinks matters becomes a moral issue by virtue of what keiths thinks about it.

    Subjective keiths.

  39. keiths: Since I think the well-being of animals matters, things that threaten that well-being — like cruelty — are undesirable. It’s why I don’t think I should be cruel to animals, and it’s why I don’t think others should be cruel to them either.

    Subjective keiths. He thinks others ought not be cruel to animals because it’s what he thinks.

  40. newton: Misunderstood. Do you hear an actual voice or is it like a clarity?

    I’m not sure why you would need to ask
    The method God uses for the most part is the same for you as for me.

    how do you know stuff?

    peace

  41. keiths: Given that I care about animals, it would be totally irrational for me to treat them well myself but then shrug and say “It doesn’t matter if others treat animals well, because my morality is subjective.”

    So? I’m willing to accept that your projection onto others of your own subjective beliefs is irrational. Why aren’t you?

    Why is what you personally and subjectively believe about how animals ought to be treated binding on anyone but you?

  42. fifthmonarchyman: It is.
    Faith is my subjective response to God’s faithfulness. Faith is a gift from God but it’s something I subjectively feel

    peace

    God’s faithfulness to what or whom?

  43. newton: God’s faithfulness to what or whom?

    To me to his church to you to the universe and ultimately to himself

    peace

  44. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not sure why you would need to ask
    The method God uses for the most part is the same for you as for me.

    Which is?

    how do you know stuff?

    Provisionally

Leave a Reply