Is there a difference between believing in the Biblical God or just a higher being? I am moral and honest but would never claim some one else made me this way.
Meanwhile, a Taoist is on his deathbed. After spending his life selflessly serving humanity he is sent to hell simply for doing it all in the name of a "false god".
If this situation is accurate to what you believe, then I really don't understand why such a system could be deemed "good". How could a "loving" system like that allow for such unjust sentencing?
It's not. I'm Catholic. To give you some hint of what we believe, the Vatican 2 ecumenical council stated that even an atheist can be saved if he follows his conscience in good faith. I do not believe anybody is condemned by geographical accident.
Again, I'd recommend that you go to channel wordonfirevideo and watch the video: Is hell crowded or empty?
Here's my issue: Be it that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ alone, why would god design a system in which people are unknowingly being "set to fail"?
I'll put it this way:
A man is put on death row for murdering a total of 10 families and raping their corpses. Just before his lethal injection, he prays to God and sincerely asks for forgiveness through Jesus. The man is put to death and finds himself in heaven. (cont...)
However, I wasn't referring to the crucifixion. I'm merely questioning the other "morally good" acts god has been described to command. Most notably in the old testament. But, perhaps I should deal with this salvation via Jesus issue, because it brings up a few moral problems against god as well.
The consequential moral system which I've supported doesn't have a reason as to why an unstoppably powerful individual should care about it. Or at least nothing I can think of. However, it's not really my goal to persuade those who cannot be persuaded. For it is quite more impressionable of a moral response to do something, not because you are instructed it is a rightfully moral act, rather, because you understand why or how something is morally right.
I agree, like a triangle must have three sides, an ultimate being should be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc... But we know what it means when someone is "all knowing" or "all powerful", these terms can be used independent of God. So why should being "all good" be any different? It doesn't seem to really have a clear definition... It's like you're saying that the triangle needs to be green, and it just is. But I'm asking, why must it be green rather than red?
@ApatheticOmniscience I'm not sure what you mean by asking why the triangle must be green rather than red. Could you please elucidate that for me? Are you asking why God would be loving rather than hateful? Because when I say God, I mean the greatest conceivable being. Being loving and being just are great-making properties. So the greatest conceivable being would be infinitely loving rather than infinitely hateful. Don't you agree?
@Mystagogia87 "So the greatest conceivable being would be infinitely loving rather than infinitely hateful." -I'd agree, but that'd be merely my opinion that He should be loving (green triangle). But, perhaps the greatest possible being for someone else would, in fact, be infinitely hateful (red triangle)? Why is there a difference? What makes love and justness "great-making powers" in the first place? Why do they triumph over hate when making a definition for god?
@ApatheticOmniscience "Why do they triumph over hate when making a definition for god?"
First, I'd appeal to conscience.
Second, if God is perfect, he has no needs. If he creates the world, therefore, it cannot be out of any self-interest. It can only be for the benefit of the creature. The fact that the universe exists when it does not have to (i.e., it's contingent) is an indication of God's act of gratuitous love.
@Mystagogia87 "First, I'd appeal to conscience." But by looking at our sociopathic brethren or the unstoppable individual in your thought experiment, we can see that conscience isn't really reliable. I'll put it this way, what makes your conscience out weigh that of the "pro- red triangle's"?
@ApatheticOmniscience Sociopaths do have some kind of conscience, though they choose to ignore it. They can still correctly answer which is better, helping an old lady cross the street or stabbing her to death. They can recognize the good, but don't choose to pursue it.
Ehh, well sociopaths are actually defined by not having a conscience.
However, I don't think you could really use conscience here. For on theism, God placed conscience within us by "writing it on our hearts". So in order for one to argue that conscience confirms God's properties as good, you'd have to presuppose God's goodness which seems a bit circular.
@ApatheticOmniscience No, I wouldn't have to presuppose God's goodness. As a human being, I'd start with part of the data I receive, which is that I have moral faculties that orient me towards goodness. Then I'd look at the philosophical implications from there.
@Mystagogia87 But it's interesting that you say God has no needs. If its about selfless love, then he shouldn't have created the universe or any sort of mortal "faith test" for us. Just heaven.
So if he has no desire to serve himself, only us, why doesn't he simply place everyone in heaven? Why even have the possibility of hell?
@ApatheticOmniscience God can't simply place everyone in heaven. From a Christian perspective, heaven is a loving relationship with God. You can't make somebody love you, as loving is an act of the will. It's a logical impossibility to force somebody to freely love you,so can't can't force anyone into heaven. Hence, we have free will as we are presented with the opportunity to love God. But, free will can be abused, hence the possibility of hell.
@Mystagogia87 Perhaps not, unless he initially created us without free will.. But he certainly could have made it a whole lot easier to come to love him. Because most people who have found themselves in hell, didn't even know it before it was too late. He could have at least made himself obvious enough so that only the most stubborn and rebellious atheists would be in hell..
@ApatheticOmniscience A perfect being would need nothing. The good is diffusive of itself, and often expresses itself in a desire to share. A perfect being would have no needs and therefore could only create for the interest of the other.
If the Christian God is the true God, then we should expect that all other religions should be sent to a dreadful eternity simply for not accepting forgiveness through Christ. Doesn't this ever strike you as a bit... highly unfair?
There is no way for this God to be synonymous with love when He's dealt out punishments to his children in explicitly violent and highly unreasonable ways. I mean, sure sacrificing your son is nice, but this is after the fact; after many of the atrocities no civilized person could accept as "moral".
But are you saying these events are a result of "biblical inherency"? They seem rather clear-cut to me...
@ApatheticOmniscience I think your reading of the crucifixion is completely backwards. Christians believe that God is most fully revealed in the scapegoat of Jesus Christ. God is revealed to us most fully as the victim of violence, praying for those executing him, not as the perpetrator of the violence. Since that's the fullest revelation of God, all the Bible must be read through that lens. If your reading contradicts that, it's gone wrong somehow, from a Christian perspective.
It's kinda hard to see really see how the destruction of cities for their sins, proscription of homosexuality, stoning for minimal wrong doings, permission of slave holding, etc.. really reflects God's loving nature. Be it that he is merciful, why is it that many of his actions and commands reflect a rather violent and unreasonable God vs. the loving one you describe?
So I must ask, are these properties (love, empathy, justice etc...) only good because they are possessed by God or are they good because they actually have some sort of real "goodness" benefit that can be gained from them? In other words, couldn't it be equally justifiable for an ultimate being to have his standards for good be spiteful, jealous, prideful etc?
@ApatheticOmniscience These things are good because they are God's nature. If you're asking, couldn't God be spiteful? That's like asking, couldn't a triangle have four sides? God is a necessary being; there are no conditions before him so it doesn't make sense to say he "could" be different or have turned out different. He simply is how he is, just a triangle simply has 3 sides.
@Mystagogia87 But perhaps I may have gotten sidetracked. Though I don't think religion really provides a satisfactory basis for morality, morality on atheism, I concede, does indeed need some work.
@ApatheticOmniscience Thanks. I think that's what I was originally driving at when this conversation started, though I don't remember because it's been a while. Even if the Euthyphro argument is successful, it doesn't challenge the idea that atheism entails nihilism, as this speaker seems to suggest.
How can all knowing or all-powerful be used independent of God?
@Mystagogia87 Because "all-knowing" only has one definition. A definition that doesn't require god to be explained. But I believe that the term "all-good" can achieve that same status, even if I'm not 100% sure how.
Alright, let's imagine that an individual is literally unstoppable, he is the ultimate power over all beings in the universe. To demonstrate his power, he commands that all must bow to him and do what he says. If not, deviants will be punished for an eternity, placing them in literally the worst possible state of misery. So why should this individual even care about any moral system considering His power? Well, before I go any further, I must ask you, haven't I simply described God?
@ApatheticOmniscience You have not, my friend. The God you reject is one I reject, too. The God I believe in has not told us to bow to him to demonstrate his power. To give you a hint of my perspective, I believe that God became a baby to weak to hold his head up and died in humiliation on a cross. That's the fullest revelation of God for a Christian. He doesn't send anyone to hell; he wants all to be saved and we send ourselves, if we go. continued...
@ApatheticOmniscience God wants us to order our lives to him not because he's egocentric, but because he is love. So when we order ourselves to him, we become most fully alive.
If you're interested in my perspective, check out the channel wordonfirevideo. Watch his video called "The God Who Does Not Need Us." Then if you're up for it watch his video on Hell. Then if you really are a glutton for punishment watch "Is Hell Crowded or Empty?" The God you're arguing against is one I reject!
@Mystagogia87 I could only find the one about hell on YT. I found it interesting because he described it as a place of perpetual "loneliness" without god. I already live without god, so does that mean hell is simply atheism or something?
@ApatheticOmniscience Search wordonfirevideo god does not need us. That's the first I mentioned.
As far as your interpretations of the Bible, what you're saying is a criticism of Biblical inerrancy, or a criticism of certain ways of reading the Bible, not a criticism of any idea I'm putting forward.
If you live without God, you probably are quite miserable. If you are not, it is probably because you have goodness and love in your life, which are other words for God.
@Mystagogia87 Well, I'm certainly not miserable, in fact I'm quite satisfied indeed :] But I don't really see why an ultimate being must be associated with love rather than hate. I mean, many Gods throughout human history have been well known for characteristics that we might easily regard as "immoral". This includes the God of the Old Testament..
It seems like you've redefined the Christian God to mean ("love, empathy, justice etc..) however, these are properties that can be secular...
@ApatheticOmniscience I have not redefined God as love; that's a definition that's found in the New Testament, and it's one and the same with the Trinitarian claim (that within God's identity is the lover, the beloved, and the love that they share).
@Mystagogia87 Oh but I wasn't referring to the Christian God when I bring up the definition. I was talking about the greatest possible being and questioning as to why He should be loving rather than spiteful. But now we have that cleared up I'll address your next comment.
@ApatheticOmniscience Another problem is that you are conceiving of god as finite. You are conceiving of God as one of the type of beings who would be subject to moral demands. I'm not saying that God is subject to the demands of justice or empathy, etc. My belief is that God is himself the unconditioned empathy and justice which we seek when we try to be good, it's what pulls us toward goodness.
"theres an epistemological difficulty, how do u know what gods commands are? How do u find out? The only answer is you go to certain sacred texts which are interpreted by certain appointed individuals, priests and so-forth, theologians and they tell you what Gods commands are...."
WRONG!!! I PREFER TO GO RIGHT TO THE SOURCE N CONVERSE/COMMUNICATE with God-Like Entities ;)
Colin McGinn makes a mistake here. He thinks the Euthyphro argument rebuts the idea that you can't have a moral foundation without God. But even if the Euthyphro argument is successful, which I don't think it is, it doesn't rebut that idea. If the Euthyphro argument succeeds, it simply shows that morality cannot be based on God. But if morality can't be based on God, it doesn't follow that there is an atheistic foundation for morality. Rather, nihilism might be implied.
@Mystagogia87 Yes, "absolute morality" cannot be reached through atheism. However, atheism can decipher morality through argued and well thought out reasoning.
@Mystagogia87 Morality exists because we need it to exist. We've created it on the basis on empathy for one another and appreciation for the flourishing of society. Without it, we'd be nothing but a loosely tied group of apes.
@ApatheticOmniscience Saying that you need something to exist does not make it real. You're talking about why particular moral claims are useful. But that does not make them true. You have not given any reason to think that nihilism is false.
@Mystagogia87 Oh wow.... I have no idea what you're talking about dude. I'm only saying that morals exist because we've created them to survive as a species. They are subjective but that certainly doesn't mean they're meaningless like nihilism suggests.
I'll refer to my first comment: "atheism can decipher morality through argued and well thought out reasoning." In other words, the distinction between "right" & "wrong" can be derived from man, not God. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with that
Here's the problem with saying that morality is a matter of human invention or opinion. By that definition, if the Nazis had won and taken over Europe and the rest of the world, and had brainwashed or exterminated everyone who disagreed with them, then Nazism would be morally good. If morality is subjective, then it's a matter of personal preference. You like compassion? Oh, well I like dismembering people. Different strokes!
@Mystagogia87 Well if all is equal, Nazism should be just as equatable as any other morality. However, I'd say there's such thing as a "better" alternative to such a system. It would be one based on empathy, fairness and respect for the existence of mankind rather than the dismemberment of it. Employment of better moral systems should, in theory, encourage the betterment of our lives.
Just as there are foods poisonous to our bodies, there are ethics that are destructive to civilization.
@ApatheticOmniscience Morality should better society? On your view, says who? That's just your subjective opinion. If I find pleasure in hurting society, and I'm powerful enough to get away with it, you have no ground to stand on to say that your view is "better." It's subjective. It's like saying your preference of breakfast cereal is "better." The fact that you use a word such as "better" implies that there is an objective moral ideal for us to be moving towards, independent of opinion.
@Mystagogia87 I'm saying that if we base morality on the escape from suffering via the flourishing of society, then we can create "better" systems of ethics as opposed to Nazism.
@Mystagogia87 But why value civilization? Well, we'd have no choice but to take refuge in subjectivity. Most people are opposed to living in a world in which their family members are raped and/or killed. If we design a method to prevent such a world, we could base what's "good" on the effect our actions have on the tenets reasonably established in such a system.
@ApatheticOmniscience But why is this system binding on somebody who doesn't want to enter into the social contract? Suppose I'm in a powerful position and can hurt others to my own benefit, and don't care about the well-being of others. On your view, why is human flourishing more valuable than the flourishing of corn?
@Mystagogia87 Because detriment to other members of society on nothing more than hedonistic pleasures is not a tenable position. Supremacy over other members of our species is only illusory
But It's only natural for us conscious beings to value our existence over that of other plants and animals. We're kinda on the top of the foodchain
So if we differentiate ourselves from less civilized creatures, we can then establish rights among ourselves in order to maintain the bonds which we've created.
@Mystagogia87 -No, I meant that as a species, such differences are irrelevant to the legitimacy of opinions.
But a sociopath? I must remind you that I am not attempting to establish an objective morality. Just a morality that concerns itself with furthering the existence of mankind. But I am well aware that this can only happen if humans are able to agree that their existence is a "good thing", which isn't very farfetched in this universe..
@Mystagogia87 It's the escape from the worst possible misery.Theoretically, to an unbiased viewer, genocide should be equivalent to charity. But that's not really reality. We align genocide with "bad" merely because we don't want such a thing to happen to us. "Suffering" by definition is a bad thing, if we can establish via consensus what this suffering is, every action against it should be good, right?
@ApatheticOmniscience Absolutely not! Not every action against suffering is good. That's far too simplistic. If you stub your toe, and I end that suffering by shooting you in the head, I'd say that's wrong, though it is an action which ends your suffering.
Also, you said you're not trying to establish an objective morality. OK. In that case, don't ever bother having a moral argument with anybody. It's only worth arguing if there's actually some right answer to get at.
-Remember, this morality would be based on certain (aforementioned) tenets that a society must accept in order to preserve itself. The destruction of innocence would NOT fall into this category. Perhaps I misspoke when I said "every action".
-But lets look at your proposed solution to suffering. I mean, what kind of world would it be if such methods as you described were implemented into our daily lives? cont..
-I already pointed out in my fist comment, that atheism can't have a objective morality. In fact, I don't think a black & white moral code is all that effective...
My point is that if an atheist values a moral structure like Christianity (minus a few things), their values could be based on reasonable premisies, rather than some sort of "moral plagarism" (which is a common accusation made by religious folk).
@ApatheticOmniscience By objective, I do not mean black and white. By objective, I mean valid and binding independent of human opinion.
"heir values could be based on reasonable premisies"
I still just can't see why you'd have values at all, or moral convictions at all. You can "start with reasonable premises," but you haven given any reason to think those premises are more reasonable than their opposites, on atheism. And why should I live according to YOUR code?
@Mystagogia87 Ok, well, I'll try to be a bit more clear with what I'm talking about:
On this moral system, it would be based on the goal of removing ourselves from a state of worst possible misery (bad). If mankind's flourishing is a thing that mitigates this suffering, it is safe to say that it's a "good thing" and therefore must be valued and nourished.
Killing each other to exterminate suffering is a terrible method because it creates much more suffering (emotional) than eliminated.
@Mystagogia87 If you value your brief time in existence, then you'd probably want to make it last. This moral system would assist an individual by preserving such a goal..
@ApatheticOmniscience Suppose I'm in a position to enslave a large number of people for my benefit. How can you say that I "should" not do those things on your moral view? Why SHOULD I have empathy? You haven't given a source of that moral duty. And if you look at history, it's not at all obvious, so you don't get to just assert it. Where does that moral duty come from?
@Mystagogia87 Well you're putting many people into a state of suffering. If suffering is a bad thing, placing them in that state can then be deemed "wrong".
But why follow a morality without the threat of eternal damnation or an all powerful source telling you to? Well, then it's a good thing you brought up history!
Throughout past human experiences, we examine how actions such as you described, affect the person(s) who commits them.
@Mystagogia87 For example, Hitler's crimes against humanity in Europe were eventually crushed by his enemies. In fact, his tyrannical actions led to his own suicide! Authoritarian dictatorships havent been known to be a successful way of governing society. We know that people do not respond well when under miserable circumstances, or when they witness such actions occurring.
Empathy is a useful tool in avoiding the self-destructing consequences that arise from certain actions as you described.
@Mystagogia87 So let's say that you were to about to coerce enslavement on a small island with an army, how would this play out? Do you think they'd be happy to become a slave? Not likely... Even if you did succeed, it wouldn't be easy to maintain such a position. Your slave population would probably attempt rebellions and escapes, frequently putting you at risk. And considering tremendous foreign pressures from societies that value human flourishing, I doubt you'd last more than a week.
@ApatheticOmniscience So it's not morally wrong then, it's just imprudent because they'll get me back. But suppose I'm in a position not to get caught. Suppose for this thought experiment that I'm powerful enough. Why should I care what anyone else feels, on your view? Where does this moral demand come from that imposes itself on the exercise of my power any way that I want? You've simply deemed it unwise for my own self-interest, or asserted that it's bad. But you haven't justified it.
@Mystagogia87 I'm terribly sorry, but could you be a bit more specific? I've already established why it's an immoral practice, yet it seems you've ignored it. If you have a problem with my explanation, please spare me my ignorance of your refutation.
@Mystagogia87 I assessed differentiating "right" and "wrong" w/ the concept of suffering. I stated why it's a bad thing, but I could go into more detail if you'd like because I don't quite see how this fails to be adequate.
In the situation you were describing, you were committing an immoral act by causing suffering, I addressed why you should respect the well being of others due to the likely consequences brought on. However, I will respond to your new situation after we get this cleared up
@ApatheticOmniscience This is getting very muddled. I'm confused about what you want me to clear up.
In any case, you've said you can't have an objective morality, so in the end, that means it's subjective. Your idea of what's moral is your quirky little opinion, just as objectively valid as if you said the exact opposite. We might be going in circles now, but I do appreciate your thought-provoking and respectful discussion. God bless, my friend.
@Mystagogia87 It's subjective because it's based on the premise that, all things being equal, having a happy existence is valuable to us. There's no transcendent force validating this fact, but so far, I see nothing wrong with this form of subjectivity.
All I asked for is a simple refutation as to why morality couldn't be based on the reasons I previously stated.
I truly hope you're not ending this rather interesting discussion on an abrupt presupposition...
It's valuable to you to be happy. But why should it be valuable to ME that you are happy, if I can diminish your happiness in order to increase mine? Supposing, of course, that I can get away with it. I am not doubting that empathy is better than cruelty. I believe it is. I'm just questioning what makes it true on your view. Why should I have empathy?
@Mystagogia87 Morality doesn't really make logical sense, but it's something that comes natural to almost everybody. We don't NEED to have sex, and yet we all have a drive to do it. Similarly, we don't NEED to act morally to other people, but our brain is programmed to do just that.
-I've addressed why the destruction of a person's state of well being can be considered an "immoral action" however, I can expound upon that issue a bit more if you'd like.
But you pose the question that even if we can establish what is right or wrong or establish that a structured society is the best way to remove suffering. Why should a person with enough power, even care about such concepts? Cont...
@ApatheticOmniscience This is getting very muddled. I'm confused about what you want me to clear up.
In any case, you've said you can't have an objective morality, so in the end, that means it's subjective. Your idea of what's moral is your quirky little opinion, just as objectively valid as if you said the exact opposite. We might be going in circles now, but I do appreciate your thought-provoking and respectful discussion. God bless, my friend.
@Mystagogia87 Again, I must point out, this is only based on morality being based on certain premises such as empathy, respect for societal members, innocence, etc...
@ApatheticOmniscience You are also giving a standard for morality that is objective. If it's your view that what's morally good is what helps society, then if my view disagrees with that, you think I'm wrong. But words like "right" and "wrong" imply that there is a right answer to get at, which implies objectivity. I'm relieved that you do think that empathy is good, and that that view is BETTER than others. I agree.
if you admit that morals were decided upon by humans and not by a god, like Denys Turner just did, then what is there left for a god to do? He also believes that evolution accounts for the diversity of life that we see, but somehow, even after making these concessions, he manages to remain a Christian and not a deist. By interpreting the text however you please, you are deciding yourself what god is and what god can do.
The implications of what the last speaker said is that polytheistic socieies are by nature immoral. As a polytheist, I disagree. We have a strong moral sense, but it is not embodied in commandments but in virtues. It is not "thou shalt not," but "thou shouldst." We should want to live our lives according to what we admire. This is very different from avoiding actions we are told are wrong. It is certainly a valid system of morality, however.
Where is your substantiates of debate in your quote?
~Christians don't claim of keeping moralities any easier than any Atheist, we just claim that moralities exist as objective as 2+2=4.
one by C.S. Lewis; "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
@WILLTHEWGMAN If you want me to answer your questions, you'll need to answer mine. Since no evidence for a soul is forthcoming, we will have to avoid discussion of such a concept until we have established its existence. So, we are back to: Why do you do the right thing? Is it just because it it right? That's why I do it--and yes, I decide what is right. Do you do it because you fear punishment? A legitimate reason. Do you do it because you feel a divine entity directs you to do so?
Science can discover what we are but never inform us of who we are. Who we are and it's value of understanding within humanity is evidence the soul and God. Love, hate, good, evil, self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill of choices in actions over even one's own survival in this life is all evidence of the soul! Reality is what we are as such and not where we are as a place!
@WILLTHEWGMAN Please define this objective moral of which you speak. I have yet to know it although I have heard of it quite often, yet the notion seems to vanish when one seeks a visage...
If one is color-blind and does not see red, my red shirt will still exist.
Objective morality is a set of moral truths of right & wrong based on human values as such. A moral law giver (God) is the only known possible mechanism for such objectivity because of its claim of prior intent in mankind. Otherwise, how is anything humans are capable of ever really inhumane? To throw live babies into a fire to reduce overpopulation & stay warm can be only "subjectively" wrong minus this..
@WILLTHEWGMAN You are claiming that objective morality exists. Yet you have not shared the definition or description that would be usable from an objective stand point. Basically, if the morality is objective, I expect that a sociopath (or whatever would be the appropriate term) could use the rules. So as clueless about morality as this individual is...it would be possible for them to be moral...
Objective morality is simple; Regardless if only 2 humans were left on Earth & both thought that torturing animals was fun & good this still would be objectively evil and inhumane! I do claim that to throw live babies into a fire to only reduce overpopulation & stay warm is objectively wrong, do you? If nothing humans are capable of doing can ever be defined as objectively evil or objectively good the word humanity is left meaningless! A sociopath is 1 without these basic truths...
I don't dispute that there are shared notions of morality. I don't think this is in debate at all! What is at issue is the specifics of what is being claimed. All of which are subjective. So, biologically we may be predisposed to FEEL as certain way about many things. There are tons of issues where we are out of sync. This does not support objective morality.
God as described in the bible is definitely not my idea of moral (Deuteronomy!).
I do not deny that your sense of morality is not subjective, you make yours up as you wish. I assume you could respect and admire a sociopath killer as a practicing nihilist that is free God's thumb... If you could never admire or respect such a sociopathic killer even for only this alone, ask yourself why not... could it be that you come to understand there are moral truths? Is that what you mean by "biologically predisposed to FEEL a certain way"?
@WILLTHEWGMAN With regard to the 2 humans left on Earth... They may in fact find that torturing animals is indeed fun, since, they may actually be insane... Note: The problem here.... How we FEEL about the activity is the only thing that we claim as the moral determiner. Here try this... I find religion to be morally WRONG. Why, it advocates faith over reason. I find this simply thing wrong. Is it objectively wrong? No... Subjective Yes! Would many people agree with me? Yes!
What does "insane" even mean without moral truths in the case of the 2 left on Earth? My point is that it would be objectively morally wrong to the animals even though the animals have little to no true understanding of the morality or it's objectivity as wrong in this case..., not to you or me, we are not there... The value morality as truth in such a case is self-apparent as a truth to most humans and you are in the minority otherwise... Did I mention anything about religion....?
@WILLTHEWGMAN ??? Self-apparent truth... I would dare say that most people will agree to most moral notions. BUT IT IS NOT CATEGORICAL! This is the REASON that I ask for a definition of what you are calling objective morality... I'll put it another way... You are making a claim... I would like to see SOMETHING that shows your claim to be true. Given the obvious conflicts of morals, that seems to me pretty conclusive proof of it being subjective... WHERE IS YOUR DEFINITION????
I can not prove to you with math that there are moral truths no more than I can prove the truths in love. These things are written truths within the hearts of mankind. There is great evidence of such being truths as in the criminal justice system & it's laws that make moral issues like cold-blooded murder categorically wrong. Is humanity itself evidence of this or just a total illusion? The truth is, human reality is more about who we are as such & not what we are biochemically...
@WILLTHEWGMAN Yes, sanity is subjective... So...is good, right, wrong, normal (general sense), reasonable (worst subjective thing of all...at least to me...)... If morals were objective, moral dilemmas would not exist...since there would be a clear answer...regardless of how we felt about it. Unfortunately, our collective feelings about any given act ultimately determines the moral finding at least socially.
@WILLTHEWGMAN If we use religion as a base of morality, we are faced with ahh...hmmm.... how many religions are there???? Which god notion???? All claim different stuff.... Most of the ones of which I am familiar have advocated or advocates horrible notions...definitely immoral by my standards any most people not blinded by faith to see it...
@WILLTHEWGMAN Let's assume there is a god...just one which is actually sane. It would still be subjective... There is an agreed standard by which the notion of morality can be assessed. WITHOUT a standard it remains a things blowing in the wind...
Give a standard...then we can talk about whether it is truly objective or not...
~ No one can claim some reasoning in an obligation to follow any moralities as a value system via science nor can natural selection and equality coincide, to accept one is to reject the other. How can random evolution bring a value of moralities and equality in mankind via natural selection, a non-equality process? Morality as such is only an illusion of opinion and self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill without a soul is no more than biological chemical delusions.
@WILLTHEWGMAN What exactly is a soul? What evidence do you have that such a thing exists? Being moral is an attribute of natural selection in humans. Since humans are social beings, it is in our best interest to do what is usually considered moral by most--I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill, I don't want to be stolen from, so I don't steal. The more people that subcribe to this the better it is for all of us. It is better for society for me and my family to be moral, that's why we do it.
"What is a soul" you ask; A soul is your self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill that is claimed to be more than a simple biochemical illusion.
Do you claim you have freewill without a soul, if so, how? Where is the evidence in science that biological chemical reactions to lust, greed and hate should never be greater than ones empathy? If there is no such evidence, why punish others for crimes? What makes Love scientifically real in your world view?
@WILLTHEWGMAN I don't know what "biochemical illusion" is supposed to mean. Interesting definition of soul. Do you have any evidence that this exists? Why would I need this unproven and poorly-defined soul to have freewill? Do animals have souls? They certainly have emotions. Science generally does not deal in moral issues--ethics is a philosophical pursuit. Why do you do the right thing? Because it is right, or because you fear punishment, or because you feel the divine directs you to?
Philosophical only, yes indeed. What is right and wrong in your world view? Do you have any evidence that Love is not a biochemical illusion as well as good or evil?
If you are an Atheist what gives you a right for you to force your moral convictions on someone else via some obligation to heed your "empathy" over all other forms of emotions and feelings? In doing so, how are you not just becoming another religion? What makes you morally right and religion morally wrong?
That which brings about the need for the word, or name, god, exists in everyone, whether we accept it or not, no matter whether there is a church or not. I would argue that god is not dead but the churches are dying. Very few living creatures will kill others of their own kind the way humans do for thier own benefit. Immoral poeple have taken over the direction of humanity - procuct of effort = value. Money is there just to prove effort has taken place. How much effort do you put in?
Of course you cannot have a morality. With atheism it is just an argument over degrees of morality, no individual atheist or groups thereof have the absolute authority to decide their moral compass is superior while others are inferior. So they cannot justify their moral views over that of others.
Morality without God is no morality at all. It's just degrees of opinion about what is right and wrong from one or more atheist(s) placed over others. Without absolute authority, no atheist can ever justify their moral compass over that of everyone else.
answer: nope. life itself requires for those who wish to live to adopt some form of behavioral normativity or another. without any sort of standard one will parish. as far as i'm concerned, the standard in question is what furthers a man's life.
The born again Child of God says (about the chocolate cake promised to be in the next room): "It's probably a booby trap." A Christian will always test the spirits, whether they are authentic or not. A peice of cake is typically not something worth debating, therefore, it is likely a booby trap.
Simple. Morality should be based upon reason. Therefore God or any cockeyed theory has no bearing on reality. Don't kill because you understand that you don't want that for yourself. Help out the needy because you can put yourself in their shoes. It's logic. Religion is something for people who don't want to think about morality and want all the thinking done for them.
@MassacreBlast but absolute morality is not based on reason or our ability to think. Sometimes we do what we know in our minds to be right, but other times we do what we know is wrong.
As someone who does believe in God, im kinda torn on this issue.. I remeber this discussion in philosophy and most people had a hard time answering. I think this is a very good question though
I watched it twice and I was less clear the second time what the Hughes guy was talking about. McGinn was a bit fuzzy on his argument too. They looked like what they are, two college professors having a chinwag with that self-satisfied arm-waving while staring at the middle distance. What morality needs is life, human life, as the standard of man's morality. For us to live requires certain actions. Anything that restricts, shortens or ends man's life is bad, and vice versa. Simple really.
It doesn't matter how we got here, where we're going, or if anyone created us or not. All that matters is we're here, and we as humans will help other humans so we can achieve our own goals, not some god's. There's no need for a god or goddess or flying spagetti monster to tell us what to do, we do what we do 'cuz we do it, and that's just the way it is.
being muslim is basically being an intolerant murdering racist, so that is fair game when they are supposedly "morally perfect" , so can you imagine if they lost their religion and moral guidlines?? they can actually get worse than they are now? this is according to the theory that religion is the only way to good morality.
'Does God need morality' seems to me like a better and more pressing question. I think it's quite obvious that morality does not need God, yet the concept of a nihilistic God never seems to be explored.
Man is the highest intelligence walking, what makes you think that you need a God to tell you right from wrong; certain things you just should know and comprehend as you continue to exist. We as a civilize species exercise morality because we are social creatures and are governed by man-laws and to be expected a certain behavior at times (you know, there's a place and time for everything.)
So of you don't define morality through religion, how do you define it? Some people accept murder as right. And you can define morality through ordinary human reason? Where does the reason come from if god didn't created it? I could just say that I can take advantage of a little kid I get away with it, and it would be right, because the kid is weaker and not as smart/clever, and there's no reprocussions of what I did because I got away with it.
Wow didn't you watch the video here????? If that didnt' do it for you then google this The Euthyphro Dilemma. Read it over and over again till you get it ha!
It seems that many opinions are based off the human condition. Much of our opinion is based off our problem with prime reality, and how prime reality should act for us, with us. God created man in His image, doesn't that have any connection with morality? If our image is derived from, than our character has to be emersed in that someway? A human being deserves the love of God when he/she repents and accepts Christ. Christ never promised us a life filled with butterflies and rainbows
I think that "atheist professo" guy tries to turn Socrates idea on its head. God could command anything to be right, or wrong, but He doesn't. The reason is that God obeys his own rules, and those rules are hard-wired into Man's conscience. Conscience is just another name for that "hard-wiring" or programming. To deny that and to claim the conscience for some other causation is a trick of the devil, or of men's pride.
@ClumsyRoot I might have been unclear. Socrates asks :"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". A Christian would say God dictates piety/morality, and gives Man free will. Therefore, God will love a person if he/she chooses to abide to those laws.
@thegreatfearblog God dictates the Laws, but unlike a tyrant, he also obeys the Laws. The Laws were revealed, but to an extent they are hardwired into Man's mind, and that is how you explain Natural Law, which basically means that peoples from cultures that had never met seem to have a similar Morality, or Conscience. Colin not obviously seems to ignore this, but he wasn't challenged properly by his debaters, and he seems to understand the Euthyphro dialogue completely differently to how I would
The fact that certain basic moral principles are found in diverse cultures is not hard to explain. All human beings, regardless of where or when they were born, have common physical, emotional, and psychological needs. For example, as individuals, we have strong desire remain alive--ergo, killing is viewed as wrong. We also want to feel secure in our possessions--hence the proscription against theft. There's nothing "magical" about morality; it simply reflects human needs.
@ClumsyRoot Social or individual necessity alone does not explain those moral principles, I don't think. If the strong kill always killed the weake, society could still function somehow, yet societies where bullying murderers always rule are more the exeption than the rule. Same with theft, most societies allow the weaker to have some belongings, even slavery based ones. Where do then those rules come from? You either believe in an unexplained human conscience or a "whisperer" of the law.
For most of human history, the strong DID dominate the weak. The ascension of democracy and individual rights, however (and the lessening important of physical strength), has resulted in an evolution of morality.
I would agree that the we still have much to learn about the moral impulse (the stirrings of which we can see in our primate relatives), but we're learning. Appealing to some invisible, undetectable "whisperer," however, doesn't really even quality as an explanation.
@ClumsyRoot Not did, do. And will continue to dominate the weak, even though in modern western society the strong often dominate with a smile. The lesseneing of physical strenght just transferred the power to the manipulators of the strong. But my point is that the rulers almost always had very self imposed limits on their power, when they didn't have to, unlike the mammals (your primates cousins or otherwise).
True, but we've come a long way. But the average citizen in the West has far more influence now than at almost any point in history. The solution, at least in theory, has been representative democracy--one man, one vote can be the great equalizer. Of course, citizens have to be informed and politically active for it to work
@ClumsyRoot In the Christian concept, I think it is conditional yes. There are limits to God's love yes. Some commentators would say that God loves even the worst of transgressors, and God will love them if they repent, but I'm not too sure.
I've always found that idea strange. What kind of "father" doesn't have unconditional love for his children? My mom's just a puny little human, and I know that no matter what I do, I'll have her love.
@ClumsyRoot An human being who chooses to be evil or filthy does not deserve the love of God or man, neither does a father have the duty or even the right to love such a son. A (human) father who loves a unrepentant murderer or rapist is a detrimental one, at best.
God is not your Welfare Centre Manager or Joan Baez. You can expect fairness from God, not more and not less.
I disagree. I think that everyone deserves love, no matter how horrible they act. Loving someone doesn't mean you approve of everything they do, or you support all their decisions. It means you value them as human beings regardless of their actions.
The God you're talking about strikes me as an inferior being.
@ClumsyRoot Loving someone does mean supporting their ideas to some extent or at least not being completely abhorred by them. Only someone who is unwell can defend the opposite. Even following that simplistic evolutionary theory of morality would defend that point. How could you have a functioning society of humans when people accept completely anti-social behaviour. It's absurd.
Interesting to hear an atheist get so close. The religious man, on the other hand, doesn't seem to get it.
What atheists seem to miss is that this common sense is not a calculation, it's feeling the connection to the commonality and to your own being. This is something I think both of these guys are missing. We are talking primarily about empathy and intuition here - It's not intellectual, it's feeling, it's knowing. It is true spiritual life.
By definition, isn't it a tautology to say that morality is dependent on God? If people believe their God is a kind of phlogiston that fills the gaps in our understanding, reasoning and knowledge, then isn't the concept of god about as useful as the theory of phlogiston? Who really wants such ephemeral and ersatz filler in their gaps? Apparently 90% of Americans do.
mocking the bible, mocking god!!! god dont know what morality is but men does?
2 tim 4:3-5, 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
dont be decieved recieve jesus while you still can
@mrcooldude964 People who believe in the Holy Babble and the Legend of Jesus need to be ridiculed for the good of society. It's time for such childish superstitions to wither away. Secular society is far more moral than the God of the Bible, a belief in the old fairy tales just leads people to immoral acts and intolerance for others. There is no truth in being emotionally dependent, Jesus only exists between your ears, it's an egocentric addiction designed to make money, just like drugs.
@crossoldman how much does it cost for you to recieve jesus in your heart as lord and savior? jesus paid the price so its free but youll reject jesus and mock him until its to late for you. sad
@mrcooldude964 Jesus paid a price Oh my Death for 2 and a half days! Then it was party time, a nice fish fry for his buddies! mrcool it would cost my sanity to believe such nonsense. You are just an addict trying to sucker other people into your addiction. God only exists between your ears, the bible is nothing but an old storybook, heaven and hell are human inventions. You have every right to destroy your one and only life but leave others alone as you sink into your emotional cesspool.
@crossoldman 1 cor 1:18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
i hope to wake up before its to late for you.
2 pet 1:20-21, Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
@mrcooldude964 More wacko quotes? We already know your hooked on Jesus, that your brain is dependent on the emotional tripe you call your religion. As you contemplate the glory of your God your brain releases dopamine and serotonin, that makes you high. When I tell you you are addicted that is specifically what I mean. Like all addicts you won't listen to people trying to help you and will continue using your chosen drug rather than face the reality of your irrational and harmful behavior.
Is there a difference between believing in the Biblical God or just a higher being? I am moral and honest but would never claim some one else made me this way.
BFSDean 2 weeks ago
Meanwhile, a Taoist is on his deathbed. After spending his life selflessly serving humanity he is sent to hell simply for doing it all in the name of a "false god".
If this situation is accurate to what you believe, then I really don't understand why such a system could be deemed "good". How could a "loving" system like that allow for such unjust sentencing?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApatheticOmniscience "If this situation is accurate to what you believe"
It's not. I'm Catholic. To give you some hint of what we believe, the Vatican 2 ecumenical council stated that even an atheist can be saved if he follows his conscience in good faith. I do not believe anybody is condemned by geographical accident.
Again, I'd recommend that you go to channel wordonfirevideo and watch the video: Is hell crowded or empty?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
Here's my issue: Be it that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ alone, why would god design a system in which people are unknowingly being "set to fail"?
I'll put it this way:
A man is put on death row for murdering a total of 10 families and raping their corpses. Just before his lethal injection, he prays to God and sincerely asks for forgiveness through Jesus. The man is put to death and finds himself in heaven. (cont...)
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
However, I wasn't referring to the crucifixion. I'm merely questioning the other "morally good" acts god has been described to command. Most notably in the old testament. But, perhaps I should deal with this salvation via Jesus issue, because it brings up a few moral problems against god as well.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The consequential moral system which I've supported doesn't have a reason as to why an unstoppably powerful individual should care about it. Or at least nothing I can think of. However, it's not really my goal to persuade those who cannot be persuaded. For it is quite more impressionable of a moral response to do something, not because you are instructed it is a rightfully moral act, rather, because you understand why or how something is morally right.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
this again? N. O. What u do to people they will do to u.
SHITCAKES4U 1 month ago
I agree, like a triangle must have three sides, an ultimate being should be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc... But we know what it means when someone is "all knowing" or "all powerful", these terms can be used independent of God. So why should being "all good" be any different? It doesn't seem to really have a clear definition... It's like you're saying that the triangle needs to be green, and it just is. But I'm asking, why must it be green rather than red?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience I'm not sure what you mean by asking why the triangle must be green rather than red. Could you please elucidate that for me? Are you asking why God would be loving rather than hateful? Because when I say God, I mean the greatest conceivable being. Being loving and being just are great-making properties. So the greatest conceivable being would be infinitely loving rather than infinitely hateful. Don't you agree?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 "So the greatest conceivable being would be infinitely loving rather than infinitely hateful." -I'd agree, but that'd be merely my opinion that He should be loving (green triangle). But, perhaps the greatest possible being for someone else would, in fact, be infinitely hateful (red triangle)? Why is there a difference? What makes love and justness "great-making powers" in the first place? Why do they triumph over hate when making a definition for god?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience "Why do they triumph over hate when making a definition for god?"
First, I'd appeal to conscience.
Second, if God is perfect, he has no needs. If he creates the world, therefore, it cannot be out of any self-interest. It can only be for the benefit of the creature. The fact that the universe exists when it does not have to (i.e., it's contingent) is an indication of God's act of gratuitous love.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 "First, I'd appeal to conscience." But by looking at our sociopathic brethren or the unstoppable individual in your thought experiment, we can see that conscience isn't really reliable. I'll put it this way, what makes your conscience out weigh that of the "pro- red triangle's"?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Sociopaths do have some kind of conscience, though they choose to ignore it. They can still correctly answer which is better, helping an old lady cross the street or stabbing her to death. They can recognize the good, but don't choose to pursue it.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87
Ehh, well sociopaths are actually defined by not having a conscience.
However, I don't think you could really use conscience here. For on theism, God placed conscience within us by "writing it on our hearts". So in order for one to argue that conscience confirms God's properties as good, you'd have to presuppose God's goodness which seems a bit circular.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience No, I wouldn't have to presuppose God's goodness. As a human being, I'd start with part of the data I receive, which is that I have moral faculties that orient me towards goodness. Then I'd look at the philosophical implications from there.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 But it's interesting that you say God has no needs. If its about selfless love, then he shouldn't have created the universe or any sort of mortal "faith test" for us. Just heaven.
So if he has no desire to serve himself, only us, why doesn't he simply place everyone in heaven? Why even have the possibility of hell?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience God can't simply place everyone in heaven. From a Christian perspective, heaven is a loving relationship with God. You can't make somebody love you, as loving is an act of the will. It's a logical impossibility to force somebody to freely love you,so can't can't force anyone into heaven. Hence, we have free will as we are presented with the opportunity to love God. But, free will can be abused, hence the possibility of hell.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Perhaps not, unless he initially created us without free will.. But he certainly could have made it a whole lot easier to come to love him. Because most people who have found themselves in hell, didn't even know it before it was too late. He could have at least made himself obvious enough so that only the most stubborn and rebellious atheists would be in hell..
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience "Because most people who have found themselves in hell, didn't even know it before it was too late"
How do you know anybody is in hell? I'm the religious one here. Why don't we leave the unfounded, unverifiable assertions to me.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience A perfect being would need nothing. The good is diffusive of itself, and often expresses itself in a desire to share. A perfect being would have no needs and therefore could only create for the interest of the other.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
If the Christian God is the true God, then we should expect that all other religions should be sent to a dreadful eternity simply for not accepting forgiveness through Christ. Doesn't this ever strike you as a bit... highly unfair?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
There is no way for this God to be synonymous with love when He's dealt out punishments to his children in explicitly violent and highly unreasonable ways. I mean, sure sacrificing your son is nice, but this is after the fact; after many of the atrocities no civilized person could accept as "moral".
But are you saying these events are a result of "biblical inherency"? They seem rather clear-cut to me...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience I think your reading of the crucifixion is completely backwards. Christians believe that God is most fully revealed in the scapegoat of Jesus Christ. God is revealed to us most fully as the victim of violence, praying for those executing him, not as the perpetrator of the violence. Since that's the fullest revelation of God, all the Bible must be read through that lens. If your reading contradicts that, it's gone wrong somehow, from a Christian perspective.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
It's kinda hard to see really see how the destruction of cities for their sins, proscription of homosexuality, stoning for minimal wrong doings, permission of slave holding, etc.. really reflects God's loving nature. Be it that he is merciful, why is it that many of his actions and commands reflect a rather violent and unreasonable God vs. the loving one you describe?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
So I must ask, are these properties (love, empathy, justice etc...) only good because they are possessed by God or are they good because they actually have some sort of real "goodness" benefit that can be gained from them? In other words, couldn't it be equally justifiable for an ultimate being to have his standards for good be spiteful, jealous, prideful etc?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience These things are good because they are God's nature. If you're asking, couldn't God be spiteful? That's like asking, couldn't a triangle have four sides? God is a necessary being; there are no conditions before him so it doesn't make sense to say he "could" be different or have turned out different. He simply is how he is, just a triangle simply has 3 sides.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 But perhaps I may have gotten sidetracked. Though I don't think religion really provides a satisfactory basis for morality, morality on atheism, I concede, does indeed need some work.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Thanks. I think that's what I was originally driving at when this conversation started, though I don't remember because it's been a while. Even if the Euthyphro argument is successful, it doesn't challenge the idea that atheism entails nihilism, as this speaker seems to suggest.
How can all knowing or all-powerful be used independent of God?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Because "all-knowing" only has one definition. A definition that doesn't require god to be explained. But I believe that the term "all-good" can achieve that same status, even if I'm not 100% sure how.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
Alright, let's imagine that an individual is literally unstoppable, he is the ultimate power over all beings in the universe. To demonstrate his power, he commands that all must bow to him and do what he says. If not, deviants will be punished for an eternity, placing them in literally the worst possible state of misery. So why should this individual even care about any moral system considering His power? Well, before I go any further, I must ask you, haven't I simply described God?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience You have not, my friend. The God you reject is one I reject, too. The God I believe in has not told us to bow to him to demonstrate his power. To give you a hint of my perspective, I believe that God became a baby to weak to hold his head up and died in humiliation on a cross. That's the fullest revelation of God for a Christian. He doesn't send anyone to hell; he wants all to be saved and we send ourselves, if we go. continued...
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience God wants us to order our lives to him not because he's egocentric, but because he is love. So when we order ourselves to him, we become most fully alive.
If you're interested in my perspective, check out the channel wordonfirevideo. Watch his video called "The God Who Does Not Need Us." Then if you're up for it watch his video on Hell. Then if you really are a glutton for punishment watch "Is Hell Crowded or Empty?" The God you're arguing against is one I reject!
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 I could only find the one about hell on YT. I found it interesting because he described it as a place of perpetual "loneliness" without god. I already live without god, so does that mean hell is simply atheism or something?
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Search wordonfirevideo god does not need us. That's the first I mentioned.
As far as your interpretations of the Bible, what you're saying is a criticism of Biblical inerrancy, or a criticism of certain ways of reading the Bible, not a criticism of any idea I'm putting forward.
If you live without God, you probably are quite miserable. If you are not, it is probably because you have goodness and love in your life, which are other words for God.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Well, I'm certainly not miserable, in fact I'm quite satisfied indeed :] But I don't really see why an ultimate being must be associated with love rather than hate. I mean, many Gods throughout human history have been well known for characteristics that we might easily regard as "immoral". This includes the God of the Old Testament..
It seems like you've redefined the Christian God to mean ("love, empathy, justice etc..) however, these are properties that can be secular...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience I have not redefined God as love; that's a definition that's found in the New Testament, and it's one and the same with the Trinitarian claim (that within God's identity is the lover, the beloved, and the love that they share).
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Oh but I wasn't referring to the Christian God when I bring up the definition. I was talking about the greatest possible being and questioning as to why He should be loving rather than spiteful. But now we have that cleared up I'll address your next comment.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Another problem is that you are conceiving of god as finite. You are conceiving of God as one of the type of beings who would be subject to moral demands. I'm not saying that God is subject to the demands of justice or empathy, etc. My belief is that God is himself the unconditioned empathy and justice which we seek when we try to be good, it's what pulls us toward goodness.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Ahh, perhaps I've been mislead by the numerous individuals spouting "repent before it's too late" when introduced to my skepticism.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to divulge into the basis of such a moral system...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
"theres an epistemological difficulty, how do u know what gods commands are? How do u find out? The only answer is you go to certain sacred texts which are interpreted by certain appointed individuals, priests and so-forth, theologians and they tell you what Gods commands are...."
WRONG!!! I PREFER TO GO RIGHT TO THE SOURCE N CONVERSE/COMMUNICATE with God-Like Entities ;)
ssssaintmarcus 2 months ago
Colin McGinn makes a mistake here. He thinks the Euthyphro argument rebuts the idea that you can't have a moral foundation without God. But even if the Euthyphro argument is successful, which I don't think it is, it doesn't rebut that idea. If the Euthyphro argument succeeds, it simply shows that morality cannot be based on God. But if morality can't be based on God, it doesn't follow that there is an atheistic foundation for morality. Rather, nihilism might be implied.
Mystagogia87 3 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Yes, "absolute morality" cannot be reached through atheism. However, atheism can decipher morality through argued and well thought out reasoning.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience On atheism, why think that there is any morality to be "deciphered"? On atheism, why think that nihilism is false?
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Morality exists because we need it to exist. We've created it on the basis on empathy for one another and appreciation for the flourishing of society. Without it, we'd be nothing but a loosely tied group of apes.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Saying that you need something to exist does not make it real. You're talking about why particular moral claims are useful. But that does not make them true. You have not given any reason to think that nihilism is false.
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Oh wow.... I have no idea what you're talking about dude. I'm only saying that morals exist because we've created them to survive as a species. They are subjective but that certainly doesn't mean they're meaningless like nihilism suggests.
I'll refer to my first comment: "atheism can decipher morality through argued and well thought out reasoning." In other words, the distinction between "right" & "wrong" can be derived from man, not God. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with that
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Sorry if I made myself sound very obscure.
Here's the problem with saying that morality is a matter of human invention or opinion. By that definition, if the Nazis had won and taken over Europe and the rest of the world, and had brainwashed or exterminated everyone who disagreed with them, then Nazism would be morally good. If morality is subjective, then it's a matter of personal preference. You like compassion? Oh, well I like dismembering people. Different strokes!
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Well if all is equal, Nazism should be just as equatable as any other morality. However, I'd say there's such thing as a "better" alternative to such a system. It would be one based on empathy, fairness and respect for the existence of mankind rather than the dismemberment of it. Employment of better moral systems should, in theory, encourage the betterment of our lives.
Just as there are foods poisonous to our bodies, there are ethics that are destructive to civilization.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Morality should better society? On your view, says who? That's just your subjective opinion. If I find pleasure in hurting society, and I'm powerful enough to get away with it, you have no ground to stand on to say that your view is "better." It's subjective. It's like saying your preference of breakfast cereal is "better." The fact that you use a word such as "better" implies that there is an objective moral ideal for us to be moving towards, independent of opinion.
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 I'm saying that if we base morality on the escape from suffering via the flourishing of society, then we can create "better" systems of ethics as opposed to Nazism.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 But why value civilization? Well, we'd have no choice but to take refuge in subjectivity. Most people are opposed to living in a world in which their family members are raped and/or killed. If we design a method to prevent such a world, we could base what's "good" on the effect our actions have on the tenets reasonably established in such a system.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience But why is this system binding on somebody who doesn't want to enter into the social contract? Suppose I'm in a powerful position and can hurt others to my own benefit, and don't care about the well-being of others. On your view, why is human flourishing more valuable than the flourishing of corn?
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Because detriment to other members of society on nothing more than hedonistic pleasures is not a tenable position. Supremacy over other members of our species is only illusory
But It's only natural for us conscious beings to value our existence over that of other plants and animals. We're kinda on the top of the foodchain
So if we differentiate ourselves from less civilized creatures, we can then establish rights among ourselves in order to maintain the bonds which we've created.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience "But It's only natural for us conscious beings to value our existence over that of other plants and animals. "
Some people don't care. It's only natural that some people don't care.
" Supremacy over other members of our species is only illusory"
Why? Some people are more intelligent or beautiful or powerful than others. That doesn't seem illusory.
You haven't yet shown me why a sociopath should value empathy over cruelty, on an atheistic view.
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 -No, I meant that as a species, such differences are irrelevant to the legitimacy of opinions.
But a sociopath? I must remind you that I am not attempting to establish an objective morality. Just a morality that concerns itself with furthering the existence of mankind. But I am well aware that this can only happen if humans are able to agree that their existence is a "good thing", which isn't very farfetched in this universe..
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@Mystagogia87 It's the escape from the worst possible misery.Theoretically, to an unbiased viewer, genocide should be equivalent to charity. But that's not really reality. We align genocide with "bad" merely because we don't want such a thing to happen to us. "Suffering" by definition is a bad thing, if we can establish via consensus what this suffering is, every action against it should be good, right?
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Absolutely not! Not every action against suffering is good. That's far too simplistic. If you stub your toe, and I end that suffering by shooting you in the head, I'd say that's wrong, though it is an action which ends your suffering.
Also, you said you're not trying to establish an objective morality. OK. In that case, don't ever bother having a moral argument with anybody. It's only worth arguing if there's actually some right answer to get at.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Or try a bandage? lol.
-Remember, this morality would be based on certain (aforementioned) tenets that a society must accept in order to preserve itself. The destruction of innocence would NOT fall into this category. Perhaps I misspoke when I said "every action".
-But lets look at your proposed solution to suffering. I mean, what kind of world would it be if such methods as you described were implemented into our daily lives? cont..
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 cont..
Not even sociopaths would enjoy living in the shadow of such possibilities. Suffering applies emotionally as well as physically.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87
-I already pointed out in my fist comment, that atheism can't have a objective morality. In fact, I don't think a black & white moral code is all that effective...
My point is that if an atheist values a moral structure like Christianity (minus a few things), their values could be based on reasonable premisies, rather than some sort of "moral plagarism" (which is a common accusation made by religious folk).
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience By objective, I do not mean black and white. By objective, I mean valid and binding independent of human opinion.
"heir values could be based on reasonable premisies"
I still just can't see why you'd have values at all, or moral convictions at all. You can "start with reasonable premises," but you haven given any reason to think those premises are more reasonable than their opposites, on atheism. And why should I live according to YOUR code?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Ok, well, I'll try to be a bit more clear with what I'm talking about:
On this moral system, it would be based on the goal of removing ourselves from a state of worst possible misery (bad). If mankind's flourishing is a thing that mitigates this suffering, it is safe to say that it's a "good thing" and therefore must be valued and nourished.
Killing each other to exterminate suffering is a terrible method because it creates much more suffering (emotional) than eliminated.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 If you value your brief time in existence, then you'd probably want to make it last. This moral system would assist an individual by preserving such a goal..
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Suppose I'm in a position to enslave a large number of people for my benefit. How can you say that I "should" not do those things on your moral view? Why SHOULD I have empathy? You haven't given a source of that moral duty. And if you look at history, it's not at all obvious, so you don't get to just assert it. Where does that moral duty come from?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Well you're putting many people into a state of suffering. If suffering is a bad thing, placing them in that state can then be deemed "wrong".
But why follow a morality without the threat of eternal damnation or an all powerful source telling you to? Well, then it's a good thing you brought up history!
Throughout past human experiences, we examine how actions such as you described, affect the person(s) who commits them.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 For example, Hitler's crimes against humanity in Europe were eventually crushed by his enemies. In fact, his tyrannical actions led to his own suicide! Authoritarian dictatorships havent been known to be a successful way of governing society. We know that people do not respond well when under miserable circumstances, or when they witness such actions occurring.
Empathy is a useful tool in avoiding the self-destructing consequences that arise from certain actions as you described.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 So let's say that you were to about to coerce enslavement on a small island with an army, how would this play out? Do you think they'd be happy to become a slave? Not likely... Even if you did succeed, it wouldn't be easy to maintain such a position. Your slave population would probably attempt rebellions and escapes, frequently putting you at risk. And considering tremendous foreign pressures from societies that value human flourishing, I doubt you'd last more than a week.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience So it's not morally wrong then, it's just imprudent because they'll get me back. But suppose I'm in a position not to get caught. Suppose for this thought experiment that I'm powerful enough. Why should I care what anyone else feels, on your view? Where does this moral demand come from that imposes itself on the exercise of my power any way that I want? You've simply deemed it unwise for my own self-interest, or asserted that it's bad. But you haven't justified it.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 I'm terribly sorry, but could you be a bit more specific? I've already established why it's an immoral practice, yet it seems you've ignored it. If you have a problem with my explanation, please spare me my ignorance of your refutation.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 I assessed differentiating "right" and "wrong" w/ the concept of suffering. I stated why it's a bad thing, but I could go into more detail if you'd like because I don't quite see how this fails to be adequate.
In the situation you were describing, you were committing an immoral act by causing suffering, I addressed why you should respect the well being of others due to the likely consequences brought on. However, I will respond to your new situation after we get this cleared up
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience This is getting very muddled. I'm confused about what you want me to clear up.
In any case, you've said you can't have an objective morality, so in the end, that means it's subjective. Your idea of what's moral is your quirky little opinion, just as objectively valid as if you said the exact opposite. We might be going in circles now, but I do appreciate your thought-provoking and respectful discussion. God bless, my friend.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 It's subjective because it's based on the premise that, all things being equal, having a happy existence is valuable to us. There's no transcendent force validating this fact, but so far, I see nothing wrong with this form of subjectivity.
All I asked for is a simple refutation as to why morality couldn't be based on the reasons I previously stated.
I truly hope you're not ending this rather interesting discussion on an abrupt presupposition...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@ApatheticOmniscience "having a happy existence is valuable to us"
It's valuable to you to be happy. But why should it be valuable to ME that you are happy, if I can diminish your happiness in order to increase mine? Supposing, of course, that I can get away with it. I am not doubting that empathy is better than cruelty. I believe it is. I'm just questioning what makes it true on your view. Why should I have empathy?
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Morality doesn't really make logical sense, but it's something that comes natural to almost everybody. We don't NEED to have sex, and yet we all have a drive to do it. Similarly, we don't NEED to act morally to other people, but our brain is programmed to do just that.
SimpVeggie 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Ahh, I'm glad you've returned!
-I've addressed why the destruction of a person's state of well being can be considered an "immoral action" however, I can expound upon that issue a bit more if you'd like.
But you pose the question that even if we can establish what is right or wrong or establish that a structured society is the best way to remove suffering. Why should a person with enough power, even care about such concepts? Cont...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApatheticOmniscience This is getting very muddled. I'm confused about what you want me to clear up.
In any case, you've said you can't have an objective morality, so in the end, that means it's subjective. Your idea of what's moral is your quirky little opinion, just as objectively valid as if you said the exact opposite. We might be going in circles now, but I do appreciate your thought-provoking and respectful discussion. God bless, my friend.
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
@Mystagogia87 Again, I must point out, this is only based on morality being based on certain premises such as empathy, respect for societal members, innocence, etc...
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience You are also giving a standard for morality that is objective. If it's your view that what's morally good is what helps society, then if my view disagrees with that, you think I'm wrong. But words like "right" and "wrong" imply that there is a right answer to get at, which implies objectivity. I'm relieved that you do think that empathy is good, and that that view is BETTER than others. I agree.
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
Very interesting!
lukehase 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What most atheists don't realise is that the autonomy of morality undermines many of their criticisms of religion.
You don't need god to explain what is wrong with (say) crashing a plane into a building.
But by exactly the same token, belief in god has nothing to do with making such acts right either.
The act is wrong either way.
So athiests need to stop attacking religions on 'moral' grounds. Atheism isn't a morality.
Clear404 3 months ago
It troubles me how two people can look at the exact same thing and come to 2 COMPLETELY different conclusions
JEMacProductions 5 months ago
It would be wonderful if he were right - that moral behavior is self-evident. The I guess the Nazi's were just an exception?
lourak 7 months ago
if you admit that morals were decided upon by humans and not by a god, like Denys Turner just did, then what is there left for a god to do? He also believes that evolution accounts for the diversity of life that we see, but somehow, even after making these concessions, he manages to remain a Christian and not a deist. By interpreting the text however you please, you are deciding yourself what god is and what god can do.
NRCartoons 7 months ago
The implications of what the last speaker said is that polytheistic socieies are by nature immoral. As a polytheist, I disagree. We have a strong moral sense, but it is not embodied in commandments but in virtues. It is not "thou shalt not," but "thou shouldst." We should want to live our lives according to what we admire. This is very different from avoiding actions we are told are wrong. It is certainly a valid system of morality, however.
Naiant 8 months ago
Morality needs no god, but God could do with some morality. Even Hades has more morality of all other fictional beings.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
Does morality need god? Does a fish need a bicycle? Bad example--does a fish need a unicorn?
BiffWhitebread13 9 months ago
@BiffWhitebread13
Where is your substantiates of debate in your quote?
~Christians don't claim of keeping moralities any easier than any Atheist, we just claim that moralities exist as objective as 2+2=4.
one by C.S. Lewis; "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
WILLTHEWGMAN 9 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN If you want me to answer your questions, you'll need to answer mine. Since no evidence for a soul is forthcoming, we will have to avoid discussion of such a concept until we have established its existence. So, we are back to: Why do you do the right thing? Is it just because it it right? That's why I do it--and yes, I decide what is right. Do you do it because you fear punishment? A legitimate reason. Do you do it because you feel a divine entity directs you to do so?
BiffWhitebread13 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BiffWhitebread13
Science can discover what we are but never inform us of who we are. Who we are and it's value of understanding within humanity is evidence the soul and God. Love, hate, good, evil, self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill of choices in actions over even one's own survival in this life is all evidence of the soul! Reality is what we are as such and not where we are as a place!
WILLTHEWGMAN 9 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Please define this objective moral of which you speak. I have yet to know it although I have heard of it quite often, yet the notion seems to vanish when one seeks a visage...
MyContext 8 months ago
@MyContext
If one is color-blind and does not see red, my red shirt will still exist.
Objective morality is a set of moral truths of right & wrong based on human values as such. A moral law giver (God) is the only known possible mechanism for such objectivity because of its claim of prior intent in mankind. Otherwise, how is anything humans are capable of ever really inhumane? To throw live babies into a fire to reduce overpopulation & stay warm can be only "subjectively" wrong minus this..
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN You are claiming that objective morality exists. Yet you have not shared the definition or description that would be usable from an objective stand point. Basically, if the morality is objective, I expect that a sociopath (or whatever would be the appropriate term) could use the rules. So as clueless about morality as this individual is...it would be possible for them to be moral...
MyContext 8 months ago
@MyContext
Objective morality is simple; Regardless if only 2 humans were left on Earth & both thought that torturing animals was fun & good this still would be objectively evil and inhumane! I do claim that to throw live babies into a fire to only reduce overpopulation & stay warm is objectively wrong, do you? If nothing humans are capable of doing can ever be defined as objectively evil or objectively good the word humanity is left meaningless! A sociopath is 1 without these basic truths...
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Alas, the vision stays murky...
I don't dispute that there are shared notions of morality. I don't think this is in debate at all! What is at issue is the specifics of what is being claimed. All of which are subjective. So, biologically we may be predisposed to FEEL as certain way about many things. There are tons of issues where we are out of sync. This does not support objective morality.
God as described in the bible is definitely not my idea of moral (Deuteronomy!).
MyContext 8 months ago
@MyContext
I do not deny that your sense of morality is not subjective, you make yours up as you wish. I assume you could respect and admire a sociopath killer as a practicing nihilist that is free God's thumb... If you could never admire or respect such a sociopathic killer even for only this alone, ask yourself why not... could it be that you come to understand there are moral truths? Is that what you mean by "biologically predisposed to FEEL a certain way"?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN With regard to the 2 humans left on Earth... They may in fact find that torturing animals is indeed fun, since, they may actually be insane... Note: The problem here.... How we FEEL about the activity is the only thing that we claim as the moral determiner. Here try this... I find religion to be morally WRONG. Why, it advocates faith over reason. I find this simply thing wrong. Is it objectively wrong? No... Subjective Yes! Would many people agree with me? Yes!
MyContext 8 months ago
@MyContext
What does "insane" even mean without moral truths in the case of the 2 left on Earth? My point is that it would be objectively morally wrong to the animals even though the animals have little to no true understanding of the morality or it's objectivity as wrong in this case..., not to you or me, we are not there... The value morality as truth in such a case is self-apparent as a truth to most humans and you are in the minority otherwise... Did I mention anything about religion....?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN ??? Self-apparent truth... I would dare say that most people will agree to most moral notions. BUT IT IS NOT CATEGORICAL! This is the REASON that I ask for a definition of what you are calling objective morality... I'll put it another way... You are making a claim... I would like to see SOMETHING that shows your claim to be true. Given the obvious conflicts of morals, that seems to me pretty conclusive proof of it being subjective... WHERE IS YOUR DEFINITION????
MyContext 8 months ago
@MyContext
I can not prove to you with math that there are moral truths no more than I can prove the truths in love. These things are written truths within the hearts of mankind. There is great evidence of such being truths as in the criminal justice system & it's laws that make moral issues like cold-blooded murder categorically wrong. Is humanity itself evidence of this or just a total illusion? The truth is, human reality is more about who we are as such & not what we are biochemically...
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Yes, sanity is subjective... So...is good, right, wrong, normal (general sense), reasonable (worst subjective thing of all...at least to me...)... If morals were objective, moral dilemmas would not exist...since there would be a clear answer...regardless of how we felt about it. Unfortunately, our collective feelings about any given act ultimately determines the moral finding at least socially.
MyContext 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN If we use religion as a base of morality, we are faced with ahh...hmmm.... how many religions are there???? Which god notion???? All claim different stuff.... Most of the ones of which I am familiar have advocated or advocates horrible notions...definitely immoral by my standards any most people not blinded by faith to see it...
MyContext 8 months ago 2
@WILLTHEWGMAN Let's assume there is a god...just one which is actually sane. It would still be subjective... There is an agreed standard by which the notion of morality can be assessed. WITHOUT a standard it remains a things blowing in the wind...
Give a standard...then we can talk about whether it is truly objective or not...
MyContext 8 months ago
~ No one can claim some reasoning in an obligation to follow any moralities as a value system via science nor can natural selection and equality coincide, to accept one is to reject the other. How can random evolution bring a value of moralities and equality in mankind via natural selection, a non-equality process? Morality as such is only an illusion of opinion and self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill without a soul is no more than biological chemical delusions.
WILLTHEWGMAN 9 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN What exactly is a soul? What evidence do you have that such a thing exists? Being moral is an attribute of natural selection in humans. Since humans are social beings, it is in our best interest to do what is usually considered moral by most--I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill, I don't want to be stolen from, so I don't steal. The more people that subcribe to this the better it is for all of us. It is better for society for me and my family to be moral, that's why we do it.
BiffWhitebread13 9 months ago
@BiffWhitebread13
"What is a soul" you ask; A soul is your self-awareness and consciousness as an individual with freewill that is claimed to be more than a simple biochemical illusion.
Do you claim you have freewill without a soul, if so, how? Where is the evidence in science that biological chemical reactions to lust, greed and hate should never be greater than ones empathy? If there is no such evidence, why punish others for crimes? What makes Love scientifically real in your world view?
WILLTHEWGMAN 9 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I don't know what "biochemical illusion" is supposed to mean. Interesting definition of soul. Do you have any evidence that this exists? Why would I need this unproven and poorly-defined soul to have freewill? Do animals have souls? They certainly have emotions. Science generally does not deal in moral issues--ethics is a philosophical pursuit. Why do you do the right thing? Because it is right, or because you fear punishment, or because you feel the divine directs you to?
BiffWhitebread13 9 months ago
@BiffWhitebread13
Philosophical only, yes indeed. What is right and wrong in your world view? Do you have any evidence that Love is not a biochemical illusion as well as good or evil?
If you are an Atheist what gives you a right for you to force your moral convictions on someone else via some obligation to heed your "empathy" over all other forms of emotions and feelings? In doing so, how are you not just becoming another religion? What makes you morally right and religion morally wrong?
WILLTHEWGMAN 9 months ago
That which brings about the need for the word, or name, god, exists in everyone, whether we accept it or not, no matter whether there is a church or not. I would argue that god is not dead but the churches are dying. Very few living creatures will kill others of their own kind the way humans do for thier own benefit. Immoral poeple have taken over the direction of humanity - procuct of effort = value. Money is there just to prove effort has taken place. How much effort do you put in?
dew02005 9 months ago
Of course you cannot have a morality. With atheism it is just an argument over degrees of morality, no individual atheist or groups thereof have the absolute authority to decide their moral compass is superior while others are inferior. So they cannot justify their moral views over that of others.
timcp1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality without God is no morality at all. It's just degrees of opinion about what is right and wrong from one or more atheist(s) placed over others. Without absolute authority, no atheist can ever justify their moral compass over that of everyone else.
timcp1 9 months ago
This guy is a fool--and socrates was the king of fools.
Ninjadelusion 10 months ago
answer: nope. life itself requires for those who wish to live to adopt some form of behavioral normativity or another. without any sort of standard one will parish. as far as i'm concerned, the standard in question is what furthers a man's life.
fede2 10 months ago
The born again Child of God says (about the chocolate cake promised to be in the next room): "It's probably a booby trap." A Christian will always test the spirits, whether they are authentic or not. A peice of cake is typically not something worth debating, therefore, it is likely a booby trap.
SwordofSpirit1 10 months ago
Several people are told there is a chocolate cake in the next room but they cannot know for sure, here is what they said:
Protestant: Let us dream of the cake for it is good.
Catholic: But we should not be dreaming of the cake for it is a sin.
Jew: I knew of the cake before any of you, I am the rightful owner of that cake.
Athiest: Theres no evidence that the cake is there.
Nihilist: The cake is a lie.
Agnostic: I hope there's a cake but I dunno lol.
Muslim: I will chop off my hand for the cake.
torm0 11 months ago 2
@torm0
Great anology LOL!!!
sokolel 10 months ago
Simple. Morality should be based upon reason. Therefore God or any cockeyed theory has no bearing on reality. Don't kill because you understand that you don't want that for yourself. Help out the needy because you can put yourself in their shoes. It's logic. Religion is something for people who don't want to think about morality and want all the thinking done for them.
MassacreBlast 11 months ago
Comment removed
Bernardatious 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MassacreBlast but absolute morality is not based on reason or our ability to think. Sometimes we do what we know in our minds to be right, but other times we do what we know is wrong.
Bernardatious 11 months ago
As someone who does believe in God, im kinda torn on this issue.. I remeber this discussion in philosophy and most people had a hard time answering. I think this is a very good question though
th3azscorpio 11 months ago
Family
1+1=2? Wrong
1+1=(2+) ;)
rauldoutel 1 year ago
The 10 Commandments are the laws of morality. They were given to us as a guide to follow.
redseasIX 1 year ago
@redseasIX god could have done better..
WordsofHarmony 11 months ago
@redseasIX
the ten commandments are compulsory
common sense is voluntary
guess who is right?
larstait 11 months ago
I watched it twice and I was less clear the second time what the Hughes guy was talking about. McGinn was a bit fuzzy on his argument too. They looked like what they are, two college professors having a chinwag with that self-satisfied arm-waving while staring at the middle distance. What morality needs is life, human life, as the standard of man's morality. For us to live requires certain actions. Anything that restricts, shortens or ends man's life is bad, and vice versa. Simple really.
madmax8903 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The simple answer is no.
fcdog555 1 year ago
It doesn't matter how we got here, where we're going, or if anyone created us or not. All that matters is we're here, and we as humans will help other humans so we can achieve our own goals, not some god's. There's no need for a god or goddess or flying spagetti monster to tell us what to do, we do what we do 'cuz we do it, and that's just the way it is.
Spreading the truth,
MarshmallowRadiation.
MarshmallowRadiation 1 year ago
being muslim is basically being an intolerant murdering racist, so that is fair game when they are supposedly "morally perfect" , so can you imagine if they lost their religion and moral guidlines?? they can actually get worse than they are now? this is according to the theory that religion is the only way to good morality.
kaewkaew 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh my god you poor soul. I'm so so so so sorry to hear that. You should seek help
Commitment24Seven 1 year ago
For far to many morality clearly does require the existence of God.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
arbitrary....why should we we do anything deemed right?
derocdero 1 year ago
'Does God need morality' seems to me like a better and more pressing question. I think it's quite obvious that morality does not need God, yet the concept of a nihilistic God never seems to be explored.
xXPinkGoddessXx 1 year ago
Man is the highest intelligence walking, what makes you think that you need a God to tell you right from wrong; certain things you just should know and comprehend as you continue to exist. We as a civilize species exercise morality because we are social creatures and are governed by man-laws and to be expected a certain behavior at times (you know, there's a place and time for everything.)
luciano9009 1 year ago
Who is morally superior:
The man who doesn't kill because he decides for himself that it's wrong.
OR The man who doesn't kill because he's afraid of God's punishment.
It seems obvious to me that the man who understands not to kill on his own accord is morally superior.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
ctcole77 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast Except that in the second case it isn't morality to begin with at all, but just obedience.
byteresistor 1 year ago
So of you don't define morality through religion, how do you define it? Some people accept murder as right. And you can define morality through ordinary human reason? Where does the reason come from if god didn't created it? I could just say that I can take advantage of a little kid I get away with it, and it would be right, because the kid is weaker and not as smart/clever, and there's no reprocussions of what I did because I got away with it.
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88
Wow didn't you watch the video here????? If that didnt' do it for you then google this The Euthyphro Dilemma. Read it over and over again till you get it ha!
razor1964 1 year ago
It seems that many opinions are based off the human condition. Much of our opinion is based off our problem with prime reality, and how prime reality should act for us, with us. God created man in His image, doesn't that have any connection with morality? If our image is derived from, than our character has to be emersed in that someway? A human being deserves the love of God when he/she repents and accepts Christ. Christ never promised us a life filled with butterflies and rainbows
wally212321 1 year ago
I think that "atheist professo" guy tries to turn Socrates idea on its head. God could command anything to be right, or wrong, but He doesn't. The reason is that God obeys his own rules, and those rules are hard-wired into Man's conscience. Conscience is just another name for that "hard-wiring" or programming. To deny that and to claim the conscience for some other causation is a trick of the devil, or of men's pride.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
I think you're missing the larger point. I'd suggest that you look into the Euthyphro dilemma--and all of it's implications--in more detail.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot That is precisely what I referring to!
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
Then maybe I'M missing the smaller point... :p
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot I might have been unclear. Socrates asks :"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". A Christian would say God dictates piety/morality, and gives Man free will. Therefore, God will love a person if he/she chooses to abide to those laws.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog God dictates the Laws, but unlike a tyrant, he also obeys the Laws. The Laws were revealed, but to an extent they are hardwired into Man's mind, and that is how you explain Natural Law, which basically means that peoples from cultures that had never met seem to have a similar Morality, or Conscience. Colin not obviously seems to ignore this, but he wasn't challenged properly by his debaters, and he seems to understand the Euthyphro dialogue completely differently to how I would
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
The fact that certain basic moral principles are found in diverse cultures is not hard to explain. All human beings, regardless of where or when they were born, have common physical, emotional, and psychological needs. For example, as individuals, we have strong desire remain alive--ergo, killing is viewed as wrong. We also want to feel secure in our possessions--hence the proscription against theft. There's nothing "magical" about morality; it simply reflects human needs.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Social or individual necessity alone does not explain those moral principles, I don't think. If the strong kill always killed the weake, society could still function somehow, yet societies where bullying murderers always rule are more the exeption than the rule. Same with theft, most societies allow the weaker to have some belongings, even slavery based ones. Where do then those rules come from? You either believe in an unexplained human conscience or a "whisperer" of the law.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
For most of human history, the strong DID dominate the weak. The ascension of democracy and individual rights, however (and the lessening important of physical strength), has resulted in an evolution of morality.
I would agree that the we still have much to learn about the moral impulse (the stirrings of which we can see in our primate relatives), but we're learning. Appealing to some invisible, undetectable "whisperer," however, doesn't really even quality as an explanation.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Not did, do. And will continue to dominate the weak, even though in modern western society the strong often dominate with a smile. The lesseneing of physical strenght just transferred the power to the manipulators of the strong. But my point is that the rulers almost always had very self imposed limits on their power, when they didn't have to, unlike the mammals (your primates cousins or otherwise).
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
True, but we've come a long way. But the average citizen in the West has far more influence now than at almost any point in history. The solution, at least in theory, has been representative democracy--one man, one vote can be the great equalizer. Of course, citizens have to be informed and politically active for it to work
What "self-imposed limits" are you referring to?
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
"God will love a person if he/she chooses to abide to those laws."
God's love is conditional?
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot In the Christian concept, I think it is conditional yes. There are limits to God's love yes. Some commentators would say that God loves even the worst of transgressors, and God will love them if they repent, but I'm not too sure.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
I've always found that idea strange. What kind of "father" doesn't have unconditional love for his children? My mom's just a puny little human, and I know that no matter what I do, I'll have her love.
Shouldn't we expect more from a GOD?
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot An human being who chooses to be evil or filthy does not deserve the love of God or man, neither does a father have the duty or even the right to love such a son. A (human) father who loves a unrepentant murderer or rapist is a detrimental one, at best.
God is not your Welfare Centre Manager or Joan Baez. You can expect fairness from God, not more and not less.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog
I disagree. I think that everyone deserves love, no matter how horrible they act. Loving someone doesn't mean you approve of everything they do, or you support all their decisions. It means you value them as human beings regardless of their actions.
The God you're talking about strikes me as an inferior being.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Loving someone does mean supporting their ideas to some extent or at least not being completely abhorred by them. Only someone who is unwell can defend the opposite. Even following that simplistic evolutionary theory of morality would defend that point. How could you have a functioning society of humans when people accept completely anti-social behaviour. It's absurd.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
Interesting to hear an atheist get so close. The religious man, on the other hand, doesn't seem to get it.
What atheists seem to miss is that this common sense is not a calculation, it's feeling the connection to the commonality and to your own being. This is something I think both of these guys are missing. We are talking primarily about empathy and intuition here - It's not intellectual, it's feeling, it's knowing. It is true spiritual life.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago
Lovely Asian lady *lushfmlk.info*
Milburnization 1 year ago
By definition, isn't it a tautology to say that morality is dependent on God? If people believe their God is a kind of phlogiston that fills the gaps in our understanding, reasoning and knowledge, then isn't the concept of god about as useful as the theory of phlogiston? Who really wants such ephemeral and ersatz filler in their gaps? Apparently 90% of Americans do.
badad4444 1 year ago
mocking the bible, mocking god!!! god dont know what morality is but men does?
2 tim 4:3-5, 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
dont be decieved recieve jesus while you still can
mrcooldude964 1 year ago
@mrcooldude964 People who believe in the Holy Babble and the Legend of Jesus need to be ridiculed for the good of society. It's time for such childish superstitions to wither away. Secular society is far more moral than the God of the Bible, a belief in the old fairy tales just leads people to immoral acts and intolerance for others. There is no truth in being emotionally dependent, Jesus only exists between your ears, it's an egocentric addiction designed to make money, just like drugs.
crossoldman 1 year ago
@crossoldman how much does it cost for you to recieve jesus in your heart as lord and savior? jesus paid the price so its free but youll reject jesus and mock him until its to late for you. sad
(free will).
mrcooldude964 1 year ago
@mrcooldude964 Jesus paid a price Oh my Death for 2 and a half days! Then it was party time, a nice fish fry for his buddies! mrcool it would cost my sanity to believe such nonsense. You are just an addict trying to sucker other people into your addiction. God only exists between your ears, the bible is nothing but an old storybook, heaven and hell are human inventions. You have every right to destroy your one and only life but leave others alone as you sink into your emotional cesspool.
crossoldman 1 year ago
@crossoldman 1 cor 1:18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
i hope to wake up before its to late for you.
2 pet 1:20-21, Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
mrcooldude964 1 year ago
@mrcooldude964 More wacko quotes? We already know your hooked on Jesus, that your brain is dependent on the emotional tripe you call your religion. As you contemplate the glory of your God your brain releases dopamine and serotonin, that makes you high. When I tell you you are addicted that is specifically what I mean. Like all addicts you won't listen to people trying to help you and will continue using your chosen drug rather than face the reality of your irrational and harmful behavior.
crossoldman 1 year ago