The theist does not prove the existance of God but assumes God given morals, the atheist assume their morals as basic ethical facts but cant justify their foundation. 'Good and evil' can be replaced by 'what makes good and bad lives' then evaluating the consequences of an action we get A was good, B was bad.
I dont understand the 'without God we are just animals' part (William Lane Craig perhaps ?)
by the way if God is not real then one is only objecting to blind faith.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
From the atheist point of view good and evil are judged ethically.
Further, secular morality is personal AND social. Morality is not just relative to a person but to a person within the context of society.
If I think it is good to do something but societal standards deem that action evil then I know that, as far as a being member of society is concerned, the action is evil. This would cause me to reevaluate my personal stance on this action and possibly attempt to change societal standards.
@unkledanbot "From the atheist point of view good and evil are judged ethically." I'm not sure how one can avoid circularity in this prescription. Isn't saying something is "ethical" just another way of saying that it is "good"?
@kmsoileau If good and evil are judged ethically then yes, ethical is good.
Ethical standards demarcate the point at which something becomes unethical based on human rights and degrees of harm.
Circularity is avoided because ethics is not an absolute morality but rather a philosophy of morality. An action is not ethical because it is good, rather it is ethical because it causes no harm or, commonly, an amount of harm deemed acceptable by public ethical standards. Ethics approximate objectivity
@unkledanbot "rather it is ethical because it causes no harm or, commonly, an amount of harm deemed acceptable by public ethical standards." Suppose public ethical standards were to say, "any degree of harm to blacks is acceptable if it avoids harm to whites." This defines "good" as anything that shields whites from harm, regardless of the suffering it inflicts on blacks. Any calculus of community harm versus benefit seems intrinsically subjective, so how does ethics approximate objectivity?
@kmsoileau 'Suppose public ethical standards were to say,'
Then I would evaluate this ethical standard as unreasonable and attempt to affect change. Since undo harm would come to blacks it would demonstrably violate human rights.
'Any calculus of community harm versus benefit seems intrinsically subjective, so how does ethics approximate objectivity?'
Any human experience is intrinsically subjective. Ethics allow for trusted people to pool common standards, creating a collective subjectivity.
@mpolkey "Atheist moral actions are moral to the theist" mainly because atheists grow up, almost without exception, in societies where Theism has molded morality, so the atheist absorbed Theist-derived morality from an early age. Next idea?
@kmsoileau Except moral concepts have started to develop far before the existence of Christianity. For example, the Code of Hammurabi was one of the first instances of a rudimentary moral establishment, and The Golden Rule has ties to the beginnings of Confucianism: a humanistic Chinese philosophical system with no basis on a the idea of a god whatsoever.
@jwebbxsjado "Except moral concepts have started to develop far before the existence of Christianity." It's not clear to me how your comment is relevant to the question posed by the video, i.e. what is the meaning of good and evil in the context of atheism.
@kmsoileau It wasn't in response to your video, it was in response to your comment stating how atheists "absorbed Theist-derived morality from an early age", and I was pointing out how Christian morality is derived from an earlier age as well.
and modern atheists are by no means the first atheists to ever exist with morals.
The mass amounts of Christians aren't even able to name off the 10 commandments, and most haven't even read the bible. So would their morals even be based off the religious textbook that dictates their religion? Most take a situation and can decide if "this is harmful to the well-being of a majority of people" the same way an atheist would, without any need to reference an ancient religious book.
@mpolkey "Moral sense is human nature" If so, there would be lockstep agreement on "what is moral" across time and culture. But clearly there isn't. Ooops! Back to the drawing board with you...
@RationalConclusion "Euthyphro dilemma" Not really. The dilemma is based on the assumption that God could choose good or evil and happened to choose good. It neglects the possibility that good is an inseparable aspect of god's nature.
@kmsoileau By the discussion we had yesterday it was quite clear that you defined what ever god is or does as good. So saying "god is good" or "gods nature is good" is a tautology and means no more then "god is who ever he is".
So why again is gods nature good, rather then evil or indifferent? Is there even a reason or did god just happen to have the nature he have and that is what you call good?
@ybra "gods nature good" Good is defined by who God is and the nature He has. You might as well ask, "2 is an even number. But what if it were an odd number?" The question is absurd because the evenness of 2 is inseparable from the number itself.
@RationalConclusion "good" is not separable from "God's nature", so it makes no sense to speculate on an alternate world in which God's nature is something different than what it now is. You may as well ask, what would mathematics look like in a Universe where pi is a rational number, or two is odd.
@RationalConclusion "In terms of actions that we take how do you determine whether an action is good or bad?" Like most people, I really don't know how to answer this question in its general form. I regulate my actions according to my own code of behavior. Since I make it a point not to discuss things I can't defend logically, I won't describe my code here.
@ybra Nothing interests me less than my own opinions. I am interest in logical argument. If there's something else you're looking for, other channels are available to you.
@RationalConclusion Note that the video is about atheist concepts of good and evil. If I make a video about whether god is good or not, I'll be happy to tackle your question.
@kmsoileau "I'm not interested in discussing it because this YouTube channel is about logic, not personal opinion."
So you admit that your moral framework is just personal opinion? Then how can you claim it to be objective? And why would you then complain that the atheists don't have an objective moral system?
Morality is a set of rules regarding behavior. In order for a group to have morality they must be able to effectively communicate, share common goals and have a tool by which right and wrong can be determined.
Humans can communicate, have common biological goals such as survival and procreation and have logic as a tool to determine right and wrong.
Given human survival and the environment we can state a few logical truths about our behavior toward each other. Think about it.
@kmsoileau Were the Nazis use logical truths or did they use religious prejudice?
With the exception of self-sufficient hermits, human beings survive based on coexistence and cooperation Is it logical for humans to exterminate beings who reciprocally contribute to human survival? Is it logical for humans to exterminate potential mates?
Think about the logical truths of being a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst your species.
@robtbo "Think about the logical truths of being a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst your species." It's easy to imagine a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst its species, that has a brutal, Klingon-like morality based on strength. Our benevolent morality isn't a necessary consequence of our consciousness and ability to communicate.
@kmsoileau So you think it's logically sound that a conscious life form ignores the threats to survival from outside its species and actively promotes a threat to survival from within its species.
It's easy to imagine the human race exterminating all life on the planet over trespassing tribal borders. Its still logically wrong.
Dude, you're not even trying to use your brain. You're more concerned about arguing than thinking for yourself.
@robtbo "Dude, you're not even trying to use your brain. You're more concerned about arguing than thinking for yourself." Dude, learn how to argue using logic rather than insults. You'll seem less ignorant.
@kmsoileau You haven't made a single objection based on anything but arbitrary values. You haven't addressed a single point I made. You haven't considered if your attempts to find exceptions stand up to any scrutiny.
You obviously can't consider this a discussion, only an argument. Is there any reason I should attempt to discuss things when it seems you're closed to the possibility that your limited human intellect might be wrong?
@robtbo Actually it is you who fails to take into account your human lack of infinite knowledge. I won't help you continue in your delusion that you know more than you do.
Well this is quite a big question and I wont be able to answer it in a comment. So I'm going to link you a video that reflects my opinion on the subject. Please watch it:
@ybra Thank you for the link. The author of the video is articulate and intelligent. Unfortunately, he is recycling the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (without giving them proper credit). A moral system based on happiness and harm has the defect of being subjective. For example, how does it rule on capital punishment. Obviously, opinion is divided on whether CP is right or wrong, mainly because there is no way to objectively evaluate its happiness/harm aspects.
@kmsoileau Well of course there will be difficult moral decisions, but that applies to any moral system. So is CP right or wrong with a god based moral system? I think you will find religious people on both sides of the argument and it's not like we can ask god to come down and give us the answer.
Also if your moral system isn't based on human happiness/harm, that what is it based on? For example if god would command things that caused endless harm would it still be a good command?
@ybra "it's not like we can ask god to come down and give us the answer." Whether god gives us an answer or not is independent of whether the answer actually exists.
"Also if your moral system isn't based on human happiness/harm, that what is it based on?" This isn't an argument. Things don't exist according to whether I know about them or not.
@kmsoileau Wait a min here, are you saying that god is the standard of objective moral, but you/we don't know what these morals are? So we are then forced to guess what god thinks is moral?
And the second question you quoted wasn't an argument, it was a question so that I might understand your position better. So again; is what ever god commands good regardless of the effect on human happiness/suffering?
@ybra "god is the standard of objective moral, but you/we don't know what these morals are"
There's a lot I don't know. I don't draw conclusions based on my lack of knowledge.
"what ever god commands good regardless of the effect on human happiness/suffering" If god created us, how can the answer to your question be anything but "yes"? On what basis does creation tell creator, "you are wrong"?
So if god created us for the sole purpose to suffer, you would be fine with that and still say that god is good? I think you are removing any meaning of the word good if that is the case.
So moral is in your eye "whatever god wants us to do"? And have nothing to do with human wellbeing, suffering or anything else? Well then I can only conclude that when we say "morality" we are talking about 2 very different things.
@ybra I don't define "morality". I merely point out what seem to me to be flaws in the various definitions of "morality" that I'm aware of. If logic upsets you, perhaps tennis is more your thing.
@kmsoileau I don't see how you have pointed out any flaws in anyones definition of morality yet. However I think I have pointed out a flaw in yours; namely that god can do and command anything, even things we now consider evil and it becomes good regardless of the conciseness it have. Now how can you claim that this system is either moral or objective?
@ybra "even things we now consider evil" The fact the we now consider something evil means nothing. It might just be the social consensus of the present time. How does that reflect on whether a god is "good" or not? Your problem is you seem to consider man to be he measure of all things.
@kmsoileau Well if our creator causes us suffering and pain would be a good indication that he doesn't have our best interest in mind. Thus making him from our perspective evil or at least indifferent.
@kmsoileau Well you are assuming god have out best interest in mind, if that was true you might have a point. If god is all knowing he would know how to maximize our happiness/wellbeing and minimize suffering.
But how do we know if god have out best interest in mind? What if doesn't. Then is he really good from our standpoint?
@ybra "Then is he really good from our standpoint?" Still not paying attention. If we are the creation of a creator, then our "standpoint" is irrelevant to whether the creator is "good" or not.
@kmsoileau Read the 2 lines before the one you quoted. I don't think a god that is causing us harm and suffering is a god worth following.
But the is quite clear from what you say that your morality is based on pleasing god and mine is based on what is best for humans and human society. I guess it depends on what you value most (and if you believe that there even is a god to please) that determine which one you follow.
@ybra If there's a creator, we don't call the shots about morality and we don't judge that creator except at our peril. Now, let's get back on topic: what do atheists really mean by "good" and "evil"?
@kmsoileau I believe I have already answered that in my comments and by the video I sent you. But to be clear a good action promotes happiness/wellbeing and reduces unnecessary harm/suffering. An evil action does the opposite.
That's the bad part about distinguishing the difference between Good and Evil. It is up to the individual. But as a society, we have a single name for what the general masses consider acceptable (good) behavior, and unacceptable (bad) behavior. Society labels it as Morals.
@jollygreen122 Of course society can establish its view about good and evil. The fallacy arises when an atheist claims that a deity should be rejected because it is "evil." If a deity exists, the deity establishes the definition of "evil", not the atheist, so an atheist claiming a deity cannot exist because it is evil is being illogical.
@kmsoileau True, so basically an Atheist claiming a Deity can not exist because it's evil, also means a Deity can not exist because it's good. Otherwise it would be a double negative. If a Deity exists because it's good, logically speaking, a Deity can exist because it's bad.
@jollygreen122 The atheist argument that God doesn't exist because if so he would be evil goes like this:
1. Any god that existed would seem "good" to mankind.
2. The god of the Bible doesn't seem good.
3. Therefore, the god of the Bible doesn't exist.
Statement 1 is where the argument fails; it's absurd to assume that created beings would necessarily have the ability to morally evaluate a god's actions.
The theist does not prove the existance of God but assumes God given morals, the atheist assume their morals as basic ethical facts but cant justify their foundation. 'Good and evil' can be replaced by 'what makes good and bad lives' then evaluating the consequences of an action we get A was good, B was bad.
I dont understand the 'without God we are just animals' part (William Lane Craig perhaps ?)
by the way if God is not real then one is only objecting to blind faith.
arkatitrain 5 days ago
@arkatitrain "The theist does not prove the existance of God"
Right. The Theist believes in a God.
"but assumes God given morals,"
The Theist's belief in a God leads to an acceptance of that God's moral requirements.
"the atheist assume their morals as basic ethical facts but cant justify their foundation."
Right.
"'Good and evil' can be replaced by 'what makes good and bad lives' then evaluating the consequences of an action we get A was good, B was bad."
The problem is how to evaluate "good."
kmsoileau 5 days ago
@kmsoileau See the World Bank website and search for wellbeing ilbeing, Or ask an Afgan woman
arkatitrain 5 days ago
@arkatitrain "I dont understand the 'without God we are just animals'"
Without a God, what are we but animals?
kmsoileau 5 days ago
@kmsoileau but so what?
arkatitrain 5 days ago
@arkatitrain So what? Does that mean you agree with me? Well and good...
kmsoileau 5 days ago
@kmsoileau God - Command genocide the Canaanite gets it.-Morals are different for Gods (they are big),
Animals. - When a Lion kills the cubs of a Lioness its not murder.
Atheists - intelligent animals (without magic Objective Morality) are bad things permissible - not generally - morality is provable
Objective - Not objective or moral the interpretation of dodgy scripture from a God no one will prove,.-- enlighten us - no?
Ps
Defining good and evil, - subjectivelly its pointless
arkatitrain 1 day ago
@arkatitrain
(Part 1)
"God - Command genocide the Canaanite gets it."
If indeed a God created mankind, who are you to say that God is immoral?
"Morals are different for Gods (they are big),"
If indeed a God created mankind, who are you to say that God is immoral?
"Animals. - When a Lion kills the cubs of a Lioness its not murder"
If humans are just members of the animal kingdom, why is killing a human called "murder," but killing some other species not called "murder?"
kmsoileau 1 day ago
@arkatitrain @arkatitrain
(Part 2) “Atheists - intelligent animals (without magic Objective Morality)”
Indeed, atheists have no reason to distinguish humans as “special” members of the animal kingdom.
It’s not clear to me why an objective morality would properly be called “magic.”
“are bad things permissible - not generally - morality is provable”
Who defines “bad?” You?
“are bad things permissible - not generally”
Circular reasoning.
kmsoileau 1 day ago
@arkatitrain
(Part 3)
“morality is provable”
Mathematical theorems are provable. One can present a rationale for a given code of morals, but no one has any obligation to accept the rationale.
“Objective - Not objective or moral the interpretation of dodgy scripture from a God no one will prove,.-- enlighten us - no?”
Perhaps you could rephrase the above in English.
kmsoileau 1 day ago
@arkatitrain
(Part 4)
“Defining good and evil, - subjectivelly its pointless”
Perhaps you mean that any subjective morality is no better than any other subjective morality. If so, I agree.
kmsoileau 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
From the atheist point of view good and evil are judged ethically.
Further, secular morality is personal AND social. Morality is not just relative to a person but to a person within the context of society.
If I think it is good to do something but societal standards deem that action evil then I know that, as far as a being member of society is concerned, the action is evil. This would cause me to reevaluate my personal stance on this action and possibly attempt to change societal standards.
unkledanbot 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from kmsoileau 2
@unkledanbot "From the atheist point of view good and evil are judged ethically." I'm not sure how one can avoid circularity in this prescription. Isn't saying something is "ethical" just another way of saying that it is "good"?
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
@kmsoileau If good and evil are judged ethically then yes, ethical is good.
Ethical standards demarcate the point at which something becomes unethical based on human rights and degrees of harm.
Circularity is avoided because ethics is not an absolute morality but rather a philosophy of morality. An action is not ethical because it is good, rather it is ethical because it causes no harm or, commonly, an amount of harm deemed acceptable by public ethical standards. Ethics approximate objectivity
unkledanbot 3 weeks ago 2
@unkledanbot "rather it is ethical because it causes no harm or, commonly, an amount of harm deemed acceptable by public ethical standards." Suppose public ethical standards were to say, "any degree of harm to blacks is acceptable if it avoids harm to whites." This defines "good" as anything that shields whites from harm, regardless of the suffering it inflicts on blacks. Any calculus of community harm versus benefit seems intrinsically subjective, so how does ethics approximate objectivity?
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
@kmsoileau 'Suppose public ethical standards were to say,'
Then I would evaluate this ethical standard as unreasonable and attempt to affect change. Since undo harm would come to blacks it would demonstrably violate human rights.
'Any calculus of community harm versus benefit seems intrinsically subjective, so how does ethics approximate objectivity?'
Any human experience is intrinsically subjective. Ethics allow for trusted people to pool common standards, creating a collective subjectivity.
unkledanbot 3 weeks ago 2
@mpolkey "I hope there is in built good in people" Your hopes are your own business, reality doesn't conform to your hopes.
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
@mpolkey "Atheist moral actions are moral to the theist" mainly because atheists grow up, almost without exception, in societies where Theism has molded morality, so the atheist absorbed Theist-derived morality from an early age. Next idea?
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
@kmsoileau Except moral concepts have started to develop far before the existence of Christianity. For example, the Code of Hammurabi was one of the first instances of a rudimentary moral establishment, and The Golden Rule has ties to the beginnings of Confucianism: a humanistic Chinese philosophical system with no basis on a the idea of a god whatsoever.
jwebbxsjado 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@jwebbxsjado "Except moral concepts have started to develop far before the existence of Christianity." It's not clear to me how your comment is relevant to the question posed by the video, i.e. what is the meaning of good and evil in the context of atheism.
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau It wasn't in response to your video, it was in response to your comment stating how atheists "absorbed Theist-derived morality from an early age", and I was pointing out how Christian morality is derived from an earlier age as well.
Forgot to quote, sorry.
jwebbxsjado 3 weeks ago
@kmsoileau
and modern atheists are by no means the first atheists to ever exist with morals.
The mass amounts of Christians aren't even able to name off the 10 commandments, and most haven't even read the bible. So would their morals even be based off the religious textbook that dictates their religion? Most take a situation and can decide if "this is harmful to the well-being of a majority of people" the same way an atheist would, without any need to reference an ancient religious book.
jwebbxsjado 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@mpolkey "Moral sense is human nature" If so, there would be lockstep agreement on "what is moral" across time and culture. But clearly there isn't. Ooops! Back to the drawing board with you...
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
@mpolkey "Good Lions bad Lions all bullshit"
Why argue logically when you can just claim, "It's all bullshit!"?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Have a nice evening, Forrest!
kmsoileau 4 weeks ago
I consider 'good' as actions which are beneficial to well being and 'bad' as actions which are harmful the well being.
The Euthyphro dilemma highlights the flaw in the argument that good and bad are somehow based upon what god wants or are somehow god given.
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion "Euthyphro dilemma" Not really. The dilemma is based on the assumption that God could choose good or evil and happened to choose good. It neglects the possibility that good is an inseparable aspect of god's nature.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau To put it another way, God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau It still applies. Is something good because it's gods nature or is something good in and of itself?
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion "good is an inseparable aspect of god's nature."
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau By the discussion we had yesterday it was quite clear that you defined what ever god is or does as good. So saying "god is good" or "gods nature is good" is a tautology and means no more then "god is who ever he is".
So why again is gods nature good, rather then evil or indifferent? Is there even a reason or did god just happen to have the nature he have and that is what you call good?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "gods nature good" Good is defined by who God is and the nature He has. You might as well ask, "2 is an even number. But what if it were an odd number?" The question is absurd because the evenness of 2 is inseparable from the number itself.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau So if it was good in gods nature to kill little children would that make it good?
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion "good" is not separable from "God's nature", so it makes no sense to speculate on an alternate world in which God's nature is something different than what it now is. You may as well ask, what would mathematics look like in a Universe where pi is a rational number, or two is odd.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. I'll pose the question a different way.
In terms of actions that we take how do you determine whether an action is good or bad?
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion "In terms of actions that we take how do you determine whether an action is good or bad?" Like most people, I really don't know how to answer this question in its general form. I regulate my actions according to my own code of behavior. Since I make it a point not to discuss things I can't defend logically, I won't describe my code here.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau So your "code" for everyday decisions is based on your inner feeling on what is right and wrong then?
Also I find it odd that you don't wanna talk about your "code" as that is exactly what you asked the atheists to talk about.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra Nothing interests me less than my own opinions. I am interest in logical argument. If there's something else you're looking for, other channels are available to you.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau You don't know how you go about decided whether an action is good or bad?
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion I know how I do it, I'm not interested in discussing it because this YouTube channel is about logic, not personal opinion.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau If this Youtube channel is about logic how do you logically determine that god is good?
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
@RationalConclusion Note that the video is about atheist concepts of good and evil. If I make a video about whether god is good or not, I'll be happy to tackle your question.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Please do. btw Feel free to ask me anything.
RationalConclusion 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau "I'm not interested in discussing it because this YouTube channel is about logic, not personal opinion."
So you admit that your moral framework is just personal opinion? Then how can you claim it to be objective? And why would you then complain that the atheists don't have an objective moral system?
ybra 1 month ago
Morality is a set of rules regarding behavior. In order for a group to have morality they must be able to effectively communicate, share common goals and have a tool by which right and wrong can be determined.
Humans can communicate, have common biological goals such as survival and procreation and have logic as a tool to determine right and wrong.
Given human survival and the environment we can state a few logical truths about our behavior toward each other. Think about it.
robtbo 1 month ago
@robtbo "Morality is a set of rules regarding behavior" The Nazis had a set of rules regarding behavior. Were they "moral"? Think about it.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Were the Nazis use logical truths or did they use religious prejudice?
With the exception of self-sufficient hermits, human beings survive based on coexistence and cooperation Is it logical for humans to exterminate beings who reciprocally contribute to human survival? Is it logical for humans to exterminate potential mates?
Think about the logical truths of being a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst your species.
robtbo 1 month ago
@robtbo "Think about the logical truths of being a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst your species." It's easy to imagine a conscious life form with the ability to communicate effectively amongst its species, that has a brutal, Klingon-like morality based on strength. Our benevolent morality isn't a necessary consequence of our consciousness and ability to communicate.
Think about it.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau So you think it's logically sound that a conscious life form ignores the threats to survival from outside its species and actively promotes a threat to survival from within its species.
It's easy to imagine the human race exterminating all life on the planet over trespassing tribal borders. Its still logically wrong.
Dude, you're not even trying to use your brain. You're more concerned about arguing than thinking for yourself.
robtbo 1 month ago
@robtbo "Dude, you're not even trying to use your brain. You're more concerned about arguing than thinking for yourself." Dude, learn how to argue using logic rather than insults. You'll seem less ignorant.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau You haven't made a single objection based on anything but arbitrary values. You haven't addressed a single point I made. You haven't considered if your attempts to find exceptions stand up to any scrutiny.
You obviously can't consider this a discussion, only an argument. Is there any reason I should attempt to discuss things when it seems you're closed to the possibility that your limited human intellect might be wrong?
robtbo 1 month ago
@robtbo Actually it is you who fails to take into account your human lack of infinite knowledge. I won't help you continue in your delusion that you know more than you do.
Dude.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau I'm a stupid human being and I'm often wrong. Have fun arguing
robtbo 1 month ago
Well this is quite a big question and I wont be able to answer it in a comment. So I'm going to link you a video that reflects my opinion on the subject. Please watch it:
/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra Thank you for the link. The author of the video is articulate and intelligent. Unfortunately, he is recycling the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (without giving them proper credit). A moral system based on happiness and harm has the defect of being subjective. For example, how does it rule on capital punishment. Obviously, opinion is divided on whether CP is right or wrong, mainly because there is no way to objectively evaluate its happiness/harm aspects.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Well of course there will be difficult moral decisions, but that applies to any moral system. So is CP right or wrong with a god based moral system? I think you will find religious people on both sides of the argument and it's not like we can ask god to come down and give us the answer.
Also if your moral system isn't based on human happiness/harm, that what is it based on? For example if god would command things that caused endless harm would it still be a good command?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "it's not like we can ask god to come down and give us the answer." Whether god gives us an answer or not is independent of whether the answer actually exists.
"Also if your moral system isn't based on human happiness/harm, that what is it based on?" This isn't an argument. Things don't exist according to whether I know about them or not.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Wait a min here, are you saying that god is the standard of objective moral, but you/we don't know what these morals are? So we are then forced to guess what god thinks is moral?
And the second question you quoted wasn't an argument, it was a question so that I might understand your position better. So again; is what ever god commands good regardless of the effect on human happiness/suffering?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "god is the standard of objective moral, but you/we don't know what these morals are"
There's a lot I don't know. I don't draw conclusions based on my lack of knowledge.
"what ever god commands good regardless of the effect on human happiness/suffering" If god created us, how can the answer to your question be anything but "yes"? On what basis does creation tell creator, "you are wrong"?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau "yes"
So if god created us for the sole purpose to suffer, you would be fine with that and still say that god is good? I think you are removing any meaning of the word good if that is the case.
So moral is in your eye "whatever god wants us to do"? And have nothing to do with human wellbeing, suffering or anything else? Well then I can only conclude that when we say "morality" we are talking about 2 very different things.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra I don't define "morality". I merely point out what seem to me to be flaws in the various definitions of "morality" that I'm aware of. If logic upsets you, perhaps tennis is more your thing.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau I don't see how you have pointed out any flaws in anyones definition of morality yet. However I think I have pointed out a flaw in yours; namely that god can do and command anything, even things we now consider evil and it becomes good regardless of the conciseness it have. Now how can you claim that this system is either moral or objective?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "even things we now consider evil" The fact the we now consider something evil means nothing. It might just be the social consensus of the present time. How does that reflect on whether a god is "good" or not? Your problem is you seem to consider man to be he measure of all things.
He ain't.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau That is not entirely what I was getting at.
If god for example commanded us to kill innocent children, would that suddenly be good?
Or if we for some reason found out that satan was the one that created humans, would he then become the standard of what is good?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra You're not paying attention. If indeed we are the creation of a god, on what basis could we declare that that god is "bad" or "evil"?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Well if our creator causes us suffering and pain would be a good indication that he doesn't have our best interest in mind. Thus making him from our perspective evil or at least indifferent.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra You're just recycling the same idea: that creation knows better than creator.
Wrong, no matter how you look at it.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Well you are assuming god have out best interest in mind, if that was true you might have a point. If god is all knowing he would know how to maximize our happiness/wellbeing and minimize suffering.
But how do we know if god have out best interest in mind? What if doesn't. Then is he really good from our standpoint?
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "Then is he really good from our standpoint?" Still not paying attention. If we are the creation of a creator, then our "standpoint" is irrelevant to whether the creator is "good" or not.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau But why should we follow a god that doesn't want what is best for us? Why should we obey commands that harm ourself and our fellow humans?
That kind of god doesn't sound like he is worthy of obedience.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "worthy of obedience" Who decides the worth of a god? You?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau Read the 2 lines before the one you quoted. I don't think a god that is causing us harm and suffering is a god worth following.
But the is quite clear from what you say that your morality is based on pleasing god and mine is based on what is best for humans and human society. I guess it depends on what you value most (and if you believe that there even is a god to please) that determine which one you follow.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra If there's a creator, we don't call the shots about morality and we don't judge that creator except at our peril. Now, let's get back on topic: what do atheists really mean by "good" and "evil"?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau I believe I have already answered that in my comments and by the video I sent you. But to be clear a good action promotes happiness/wellbeing and reduces unnecessary harm/suffering. An evil action does the opposite.
ybra 1 month ago
@ybra "happiness/wellbeing" Whose happiness/wellbeing? "unnecessary harm/suffering" Who decides which harm is unnecessary and which is necessary?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
For example: Christians may find it to be moraly wrong to have sex before marriage.
Athiests may find it moraly acceptable to have sex before marriage.
Even though that may not be 100% accurate, Morals is still how we (the individual) define our good and bad behavior we project to society.
jollygreen122 1 month ago
That's the bad part about distinguishing the difference between Good and Evil. It is up to the individual. But as a society, we have a single name for what the general masses consider acceptable (good) behavior, and unacceptable (bad) behavior. Society labels it as Morals.
jollygreen122 1 month ago
@jollygreen122 Of course society can establish its view about good and evil. The fallacy arises when an atheist claims that a deity should be rejected because it is "evil." If a deity exists, the deity establishes the definition of "evil", not the atheist, so an atheist claiming a deity cannot exist because it is evil is being illogical.
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@kmsoileau True, so basically an Atheist claiming a Deity can not exist because it's evil, also means a Deity can not exist because it's good. Otherwise it would be a double negative. If a Deity exists because it's good, logically speaking, a Deity can exist because it's bad.
jollygreen122 1 month ago
@jollygreen122 The atheist argument that God doesn't exist because if so he would be evil goes like this:
1. Any god that existed would seem "good" to mankind.
2. The god of the Bible doesn't seem good.
3. Therefore, the god of the Bible doesn't exist.
Statement 1 is where the argument fails; it's absurd to assume that created beings would necessarily have the ability to morally evaluate a god's actions.
kmsoileau 1 month ago