Secular Morality and Christian Ethics (2/2) Harry's Response

[humanistheart]

There is nothing more meaningless than the christian concept of morality, which can be summed up in 4 words, Because I Said So.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

Care to elaborate?

Also, how does that follow from my video?

Thanks.

[humanistheart]

@humanistheart The title says christian ethics. Why wouldn't it be relevant?

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

Well, if you watched it, you would know Christian ethics doesn't entail "Because I Said So". At least, I couldn't see how that follows. So your remark is, indeed, irrelevant to Christian ethics, but I'd argue that it's rather relevant to moral relativism, for it holds to this very principle: "Rape is good, because it's my opinion this is so."

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy It follows as such: Sin, in judeo christian theology, is synonymous with wrong or bad. So sin is wrong and not sinning is good. But what is a sin? By definition it's missing the mark of god.It's just whatever this fictional god doesn't care for at the moment. For example, I would say rape is wrong, do to the inevitable harm it does to the victim and others. However for a christian to know if rape is wrong or not, they must be told to or not to commit it.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

I'm afraid you missed the whole point of the video. Your arguments are about how we discover what is good and evil, that's an epistemological matter. Wholly apart from that, My argument against MIJ was about the essence/reality of good and evil. Do your moral beliefs have a truth-value independent of your opinion? Christianity doesn't ground the reality of our beliefs in what God commands or says, but in who God is.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

You haven't demonstrated at all that a Bible-believing Christian is forced to accept that all of God's commandments are necessarily universal, i.e. applying to all people in whatever place or time.

If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values don't exist, then there are no moral truths. But as you've admitted yourself by saying ""Yes, truth"", they do exist, they are true independent of what we think. Therefore, God exists, he isn't a fictional character.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values don't exist, "

Since I've already explained this god could not be an objective moral standard, if you still think this I suggest you explain how it is you think he qualifies, after looking up the term objective.

"""Yes, truth"", they do exist, they are true independent of what we think. Therefore, God exists, he isn't a fictional character. "

That doesn't follow at all. Truth exists without a god, because there is no god.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

The argument was not about "truth" in general, but about MORAL truths. If God doesn't exist, there are no moral truths, as many atheists and agnostics alike recognize. But there are MORAL truths, things such as rape are really evil and love and kindness etc. are really good. Therefore, God exists.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy You still have it backwards, if your god exists, moral truths cannot exist. It's just him telling people what to do. No truth in being ordered around by a maniac, what's hard about that for you to grasp?

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy And we see that this god does not stick to his own word. Do not kill/murder is part of the ten commandments, yet we see numerous genocides committed by this god or by his people under his order. We have a long list of those that should be killed, including smart aleky children and homosexuals. We see jesus say love they enemies, but where was this love when he cursed out the pharisee's, calling them vipers, fools, and rotten from the inside out. Where was it during the genocides to

[Bucklehairy]

(cont'd)

God IS the Good, he himself is the standard of how mankind should be.

If our moral beliefs are just relative to our opinion, then your moral evaluation of the Bible is utterly meaningless. It's just your opinion, who cares? It has no correspondence with reality. So unless objective moral values exist, your moral judgments are insignificant.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

God is good by virtue of his nature. God is a necessary maximally great being and therefore necessarily morally perfect. God is the axiom in which objective moral values, rights, principles and duties are grounded.

You're judging passages from the Bible by what standard? And ahat about them? All that would show is that the Bible might not be inerrant and only partly inspired. If that's what I've to give up for the sake of an argument, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "God is good by virtue of his nature." Yeah yeah, that's all very well and good that you believe that, but what your not doing is giving any reason logic or evidence to support said beliefs. If you just want to preach, go to church, if you want to have a conversation on the subject, you need. More. I can say my ass, by virtue of it's nature, is good, and the source of all goodness, and it means just as much as your comment about god.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. Your ass is not necessarily good. God is necessarily good such as a bachelor is necessarily unmarried. If God weren't morally perfect, he wouldn't be God.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "If God weren't morally perfect, he wouldn't be God."

Likewise if my ass wasn't morally perfect, it wouldn't be my ass.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Oh, what kind of standard would you like the idea that rape and infanticide and murder are wrong? You're asking for a standard to say rape is wrong, which implies you think rape is okay. Which brings me back to my point, christians have no ethics.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

No, I belief rape and infanticide and murder are immoral.

"You're asking for a standard to say rape is wrong, which implies you think rape is okay."

The very idea that rape is wrong and should not be done is implying there is a standard common to all of mankind. "Normative Ethics" is all about how we should behave according to the "Norm". So I really don't see your point. If according to you being a Christian means having no norms, you should really come back to reality.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy You didn't answer my question. You think rape, genocide, infanticide and murder are wrong, but what are you basing that on? Not your god or your religion, because it says its just fine. So how did you come to that conclusion?

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "If our moral beliefs are just relative to our opinion," I don't think that would be the case, but I NEVER said morals are relative to mere opinion, but for some reason you keep saying that. As for meaningless, I would not call morals based on reasoning, logic, evidence, and empathy meaningless, but 'because I said so' which is your bases for morality, is.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

Empathy, reasoning, logic and evidence are by definition valueless. I'm not talking about how you know to differentiate right from wrong. You don't need God or religion to tell you that. What I'm talking about is the reality of good and evil. Is there something as a value we call "love", "joy", "peace", "patience" etc. or are they merely illusions?

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "Empathy, reasoning, logic and evidence are by definition valueless"

Really? By what dictionary are you basing that on? lol

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

I took it that by reasoning, logic and evidence you're alluding to the scientific method. Well, science doesn't tell you what is good or evil, since it is by definition valueless.

The same thing about empathy. Empathy makes possible both the good and the evil. Empathy is an experience that is valueless by itself.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Now your saying science is valueless, well again, if you ever support your assertions with reason instead of blind faith and stupidity, that will be worth commenting on, until then, it's not.

[Bucklehairy]

I'm actually planning to make a video about this, but I'd never thought I'd need to explain this to an atheist. Scientific knowledge limits itself to logical-empirical facts/data, irrespective of worldview or prejudice, and it doesn't tell us what is good or evil. During WWII, it wasn't a question of the scientific method whether a British scientist could condemn a fellow Nazi scientist for testing gas chambers etc. that's an ethical, philosophical, question, not a scientific one.

[Bucklehairy]

(cont'd)

Science can be used for both good and evil, it doesn't deal with ethics, rather ethics is required to set limits for scientists. Also, even your assertion that my assertions need to be reasonable is by itself a philosophical matter, not a scientific one.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "So unless objective moral values exist, your moral judgments are insignificant. "

Then you have the same problem as you're claiming relative moralists have, because the christian system lacks an objective moral standard.

[Bucklehairy]

Per contrast, Christ is the objective moral standard. So I really don't see how that follows. Your moral evaluation of the Bible only has significance, if objective moral values exist. Without the existence of God, there is no transcendent foundation for such objective moral values.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy p1) "Per contrast, Christ is the objective moral standard. So I really don't see how that follows." No, see numerous problems exist with that. For startes, there has been no christ. Christ means messiah, to be a messiah one must fulfill the messianic prophecies, which jesus did not do. So there's been no christ. But even if you want to believe jesus was this christ, there are still problems. For one, he would not be an OBJECTIVE standard. He was a being, he lived, and in your

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

"to be a messiah one must fulfill the messianic prophecies, which jesus did not do."

LOL. That's ridiculous... You're not a Christian theist in disguise making my day, are you?

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Jesus did not bring world piece, he did not rebuild the temple in isreal, he did not come from the line of david, he did not get anointed king, he did not end the jewish diaspora. He was not a messiah, plain and simple. He was just a jack ass.

[Bucklehairy]

You're not giving me any reason to believe that, other than just accepting your word on it, which, given your lack of authority on matters like these, seems to equal stupidity. I'll say it plain and simple: Read the Gospels and check the Messianic prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. If you value the truth more than your own opinion, I'm sure you'll change your mind.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Name 3 messianic prophecies jesus fulfilled. Even if you can argue you, unless you can show jesus actually brought world piece, that he ended the jewish diaspora, that he became the king of isreal, that he was the descendant of king david and actually existed, he wasn't the messiah.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Still waiting for you to prove jesus qualified as a messiah. Let me guess, you checked the hebrew scripture and figured out there's zero case for jesus. Good for you, finally comming to yoru senses.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy p2)believe still 'lives' in heaven. The fact is he's involved with the world, which makes him no more objective than any human being. So if you need an OBJECTIVE moral standard, jesus doesn't qualify. Additionally, let's look at the moral 'standard' he's set. The bible shows jesus being rude to his family, being an outright jackass to his followers, stealing, lieing, and physically assaulting other human beings, plus he broke the law several times. That's hardly a good moral

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

.... You must have a different Bible than I have, for you shall not find any fault in my Christ. Besides, I don't believe you could ever live up to the example of Jesus, as to sacrifice your life for those who hate you and bear the blame for their inequity, while having no part in it.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy I am easily a far far better person than your false christ. I don't attack other's needlessly, I don't steel, I don't lie, I don't commit mass genocide and inspire slavery and rape. I am practically perfect next to that piece of shit.

[Bucklehairy]

How decent, sincere and reasonable of you to say that. You're saying empathy is your basis for morality? You seem to lack empathy when it comes to this. Thanks for the debate, anyway.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy You don't need to have empathy for a fictional monster.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

"The bible shows jesus being rude to his family, being an outright jackass to his followers, stealing, lieing, and physically assaulting other human beings"

You're exaggerating. Don't be ignorant, you know that's not true and that you're just misrepresenting him.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy I am exaggeating nothing. Jesus steals in the bible, he takes pigs that did not belong to him, to help a man who was inflicted with demons, who the pigs also did not belong to, and get's all 2000 of them killed after casting the demons into the pigs, If he was really a god, he could have destroyed the demons, cast them to hell, put them in just one pig, or a rock, or what have you but no, he chose the single most destructed way possible. So we see stealing and stupidity there.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy He cursed a fig tree causing it to die because it wasn't bearing fruit OUT OF SEASON. Was the son of god so stupid he didn't know the difference between winter and summer? Apparently. At any rate, the needless destruction of fruit tree's was against isreals laws. So we see more stupidity, and law breaking.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy In the outer portion of the temple jesus flips out, and starts attacking money changers and animal sellers, despite the fact that hebrew/god's laws allowed said people to be there, because it facilitated the sacrifices that were commanded of the jewish people by their fictional god. He makes a whip of cords, drives people out. So we see assault, theft, and jackassery from this so called 'perfect' man. The fact is jesus is depicted in the bible as being a horses ass.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

So, in the end, you've relieved me of my duty. I don't need to show the irrationality of your beliefs, you've made yourself crystal clear.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy That's the best you have? Simply saying I'm wrong will not make it so.

The fact remains, I've shown that christianity is a religion without morals, and that jesus was a fictional ass.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy p3) standard. But it get's worse. Since you think jesus IS god, and as a christain you think the god of the OT is the same one as jesus and his father, than since jesus IS the things god did in the OT are things jesus did because he is god. So that means jesus has also committed MASS genocide, MASS infanticide, rape, slavery, murder, child abuse, women abuse,

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

Well, maybe the OT writers got it wrong in those specific passages and abused the knowledge of God they had to divide and conquer. It doesn't falsify the existence of objective moral values and hence the existence of God. Note that, while you're still referring to the Bible and making moral judgments, you keep on arguing that God exists.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "It doesn't falsify the existence of objective moral values "

I take it you did not bother to look up the definition of objective. Your imaginary friend god doesn't qualify, not would he if he ever managed to exist. I've already explained that numerous times, and you've never been able to offer any sort of counter argument.

So why do you persist in saying it, since he clearly could not be an OBJECTIVE moral standard?

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy p4) and virtually every horrible thing one can name. So if jesus is the standard than morality still doesn't exist because anything you can think of he's done, so you can to.

So as is plain as day, your false christ would not qualify as an OBJECTIVE moral standard, which you keep claiming is necessary, and even if he did that would be horrible because it would mean all morality is pointless.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy which I previously alluded. And of course, there is rape. Rape is allowed, encouraged, and even required by this god in several places throughout the 'scripture'. So since it's allowed, it must not be a sin, which means it's okay. So christians and jewish people have a means to justify rape.

Back to the point, christian ethics come down to 'because I said so'. If your god tells you to do something it's a sin not to, but this god's never held accountable for his own actions.

[Bucklehairy]

(cont'd)

For what it's worth, I myself don't believe the laws of ancient Israel are necessarily applicable outside their theocratic context. After all, applying moral principles is different from obeying direct commands. Divine commandments needn’t be the divine revelation of a moral absolute. Indeed, Christianity teaches that all people are held accountable by the knowledge of the moral standard through their moral conscience and use of reason, wholly apart from divine revelation.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "Christianity teaches that all people are held accountable by the knowledge of the moral standard through their moral conscience and use of reason, wholly apart from divine revelation"

Christianity teaches nothing of the sort. It shows that people are not held accountable for their actions, that their god is not held accountable for his actions, and involves nothing about a conscience or reasoning. It only teaches 'because I said'. That's it.

[Bucklehairy]

@humanistheart

Don't make me laugh. Romans 2:6 "He will render to each one according to his works", and 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy Speaking of laughing, not one thing in your biblical quoting does anything to hurt my point, christianity is a religion without ethics.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy "I myself don't believe the laws of ancient Israel are necessarily applicable outside their theocratic context. "

Oh so the supposed laws you think your god gave aren't relevant? How interesting.

[Bucklehairy]

They're relevant to ancient Israel within a theocratic context.

[humanistheart]

@Bucklehairy That's just stupid. You either believe your NT god is the same as the OT god or you don't, but if you don't you have nothing to base your NT on.

[brainouty]

Well said, Bucklehairy.

The sun exists, irrespective of what I believe about it. Right exists, irrespective of what I believe about it. What I believe about it, is at best a PORTION of the truth of its existence; at worst, a distortion or lie I'm telling myself, to avoid dealing with the truth of its existence.

Empathy, self-interest, many personal motives 'color' what I'll believe -- but in no case do my beliefs alter the truth. They only alter how much I'll benefit from the truth.

[myintellectualjourny]

Thanks for the challenging response BH.

I will try and get up a video response here soon.

Some of the points you guys raise, I already have videos in this series planned to address but others not.

I will try and address the others in a video more immediately and just note where I will be addressing some of your other points throughout the series.

Thanks again ; )

[Bucklehairy]

@myintellectualjourny

You're welcome, DJ. I'm looking forward to your response.