(October 8, 2015 at 9:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:

(October 8, 2015 at 8:34 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's not really about what kind of god would be acceptable to me. Though I suppose if I had to think about the question a bit, I'd at least include "not genocidal, not giving 'divine revelations' that are in opposition to clearly-observable and -testable science, and does not feel the need to threaten humans into obedience". Maybe one that revealed Himself in a way that's a little less like UFOs picking up drunken rednecks out in the desert near Nevada, and, say maybe visited the population centers of Babylon, Athens, China, Rome, or Alexandria, instead of one of the most backward peoples on the planet, and then hoping we all extrapolate His existence from the sparse, secondhand accounts of questionable reliability based on testimony of a few guys who came from there telling a story of a dude in the desert.

What is not  acceptable to me is a god-concept that is so obviously manmade, full of all of the prejudices and superstitions and barbaric violence of a group of desert tribesmen, who apparently didn't know that by showing up in the Mideast he'd be ignoring the entirety of China and SE Asia, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, et cetera.

What is not  acceptable to me is a "free gift" that is on unnecessary pain of torture for disobedience, like a psychopathic pharaoh, when all that needs to happen (if we assume the proposition that an Omnipotent God somehow cannot stand the sight of sin and thus cannot let sinners into heaven) is that I die. Just die. End. Finis. I have failed to listen to the Messiah and find The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and am unable to come unto the Father. Great. Only those who do so get to go to heaven. Why the torture? It's unnecessary for God, but totally necessary for a priest who is trying to force as many people to accept his authority as possible, and is willing to use immoral means of psychological manipulation to do so.

When I cannot tell your God from a psychopath, it is unacceptable to me, because I am a moral person.

So I suppose the short answer is: "For starters, not a homicidal, genocidal, misogynistic, eternal-torturing psychopath."

As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.

My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).

Sorry I thought it would make for good discussion so I posted another thread.
Thanks for replying!

I think all humans are moral people because it says in the bible that the law is written on our hearts. That's why it doesn't take a genius to realize child molestation is wrong. however, I cant understand how you can argue for an objective moral truth like genocide is wrong if you deny a existential law. It seems you assume there is moral truths. Can you elaborate more on this?

---

(October 8, 2015 at 9:08 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 9:02 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote: and if somebody was being a dick?

Are human societies incapable of regulating the behavior of their own members through laws and "unwritten" rules/social mores?

Why would we need a god to deal with dicks?

hypothetically speaking, what would the god do if they broke the law of being a dick? are you suggesting that the humans would be responsible for making up a punishment and that's all?

While not a god, the Childlike Empress accepted and loved all the members of Fantastica for who they were and never asked or commanded them to do anything, thus earning the respect of everyone to the point no one would ever think of doing her harm.

Too bad the writers of the bible never thought of that.

Yes, I just used this thread as an excuse to talk about The Neverending Story. It's a good book.

(October 8, 2015 at 9:02 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Beccs Wrote: Wouldn't need ten commandments.

Don't be a dick, don't hurt other people, don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

and if somebody was being a dick?

See my previous comment about slapping its followers.

I had a thread here . . . inspired by the work of a 14-yr-old family friend.  We agreed that parts of the description are unworkable, but it's pretty close.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-35877.ht...ight=deity

I will accept the existence of a god when the god shows up and proves his existence.



PS:  The Bible is not evidence.  Personal stories are not evidence.

(October 8, 2015 at 9:22 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 9:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:


As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.

My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).

Sorry I thought it would make for good discussion so I posted another thread.
Thanks for replying!

I think all humans are moral people because it says in the bible that the law is written on our hearts. That's why it doesn't take a genius to realize child molestation is wrong. however, I cant understand how you can argue for an objective moral truth like genocide is wrong if you deny a existential law. It seems you assume there is moral truths. Can you elaborate more on this?

Well, uh, that's nice that the Bible says that... but what law written on our hearts? No way.

Our ideas about "what is moral" change all the time. There is no basis for objective morality.  We can study the concept in terms of "we would like to maximize the good of as many as possible while minimizing harm", but really most of our moral concepts come down to our capacity for extending empathy beyond our immediate kin, to the level of the tribe, a trait which evolved in most intelligent, social species, like dolphins and chimpanzees, for instance. In the case of humans, the Agricultural Revolution expanded the size of our "tribe group" by several thousandfold, requiring a major stretching of our ability to extend our empathy to those not very much like us.

For most of our history we have been really, really bad at it. But we're getting better, especially in the post-Enlightenment societies that recognize the concepts of basic human rights.

If the law of morality was "written on our hearts", we would not have taken until the 19th century to realize that owning other human beings is Not Okay™, that marrying 13 year olds is Not Okay™, that rape is a personal crime against the woman and not a property crime against her male owner, that aggressive/genocidal wars of conquest are not cool, and that women are actually people. We still have a long way to go, but, in the words of Reverend Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

We're getting better, two steps forward for each step back, and I think once we let go of each chain of the rigidity of religious dogma, as we began to do in the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, we will advance even more.

You say that without some high authority telling us The One Right Way to Live™, we cannot determine morality for ourselves. I say that it is that very concept that has held us back.

(October 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Ayen Wrote: While not a god, the Childlike Empress accepted and loved all the members of Fantastica for who they were and never asked or commanded them to do anything, thus earning the respect of everyone to the point no one would ever think of doing her harm.

Too bad the writers of the bible never thought of that.

Yes, I just used this thread as an excuse to talk about The Neverending Story. It's a good book.

Damn right. But, The Neverending Story needs no excuses. 

Extra Kudos to you!!!

One that rewards Intellect, Wit and Skepticism, and doesn't stave 2 year olds in his plan. Basically Doctor Who.

I feel like going for another ride. Maybe get some chow. TTFN guys.

Good luck inventing gods. You can only do better than the priests of bygone eras!

(October 8, 2015 at 9:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 9:22 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote: Sorry I thought it would make for good discussion so I posted another thread.
Thanks for replying!

I think all humans are moral people because it says in the bible that the law is written on our hearts. That's why it doesn't take a genius to realize child molestation is wrong. however, I cant understand how you can argue for an objective moral truth like genocide is wrong if you deny a existential law. It seems you assume there is moral truths. Can you elaborate more on this?

Well, uh, that's nice that the Bible says that... but what law written on our hearts? No way.

Our ideas about "what is moral" change all the time. There is no basis for objective morality.  We can study the concept in terms of "we would like to maximize the good of as many as possible while minimizing harm", but really most of our moral concepts come down to our capacity for extending empathy beyond our immediate kin, to the level of the tribe, a trait which evolved in most intelligent, social species, like dolphins and chimpanzees, for instance. In the case of humans, the Agricultural Revolution expanded the size of our "tribe group" by several thousandfold, requiring a major stretching of our ability to extend our empathy to those not very much like us.

For most of our history we have been really, really bad at it. But we're getting better, especially in the post-Enlightenment societies that recognize the concepts of basic human rights.

If the law of morality was "written on our hearts", we would not have taken until the 19th century to realize that owning other human beings is Not Okay™, that marrying 13 year olds is Not Okay™, that rape is a personal crime against the woman and not a property crime against her male owner, that aggressive/genocidal wars of conquest are not cool, and that women are actually people. We still have a long way to go, but, in the words of Reverend Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

We're getting better, two steps forward for each step back, and I think once we let go of each chain of the rigidity of religious dogma, as we began to do in the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, we will advance even more.

You say that without some high authority telling us The One Right Way to Live™, we cannot determine morality for ourselves. I say that it is that very concept that has held us back.

Humans are capable of making laws up without God's help, but what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

(October 8, 2015 at 9:40 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote: Humans are capable of making laws up without God's help, but what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

Ugh, saw this right before I went to turn the computer monitor off... so I'll answer.

Of course it's a result of sociocultural moral advancement, all of which are relative. That's what I meant by "two steps forward, one step back". Some societies get it wrong, and it's incumbent on those societies who have come to recognize the concept of basic human rights to step up and convince the others to come into the modern era. 

Unfortunately, ISIS is still living by the barbaric code that informed the Biblical authors' worldview. They certainly thought that Genocide was not just okay, but commanded by God Himself!

We know better now. Our relativist morality has expanded to include the basic rights of individual humans, at least in principle (our jurisdiction cannot cover everwhere, but that's why I am a Secular Humanist, a group whose beliefs include the idea of a single world government in which there would be universal rights and global jurisdiction to protect those rights against the remnant barbarities of selfish and violent groups, usually guided by Bronze Age desert religions in their reasons for acting thusly), and there's really no putting that genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

Every rule you think is "fixed and absolute" (and thus objective) has in fact changed with time. What constitutes rape has changed drastically, just since the 1970s in the USA alone. Murder may seem objectively wrong, but if you read any basic book on anthropology, you'll see that the exact definition of "justified" murder varies wildly across the globe. You might think stealing is objectively wrong, but the concepts for exactly what constitutes property and theft are a product of our particular sort of civilization, and again can vary widely... even we would not punish a child who steals because he is starving, for instance. We would consider it morally justified because of a failure to properly take care of that child, as we think adults should do... another idea which varies widely from culture to culture.

We get this question here almost literally every day, because there are preachers out there teaching that they have absolute morality and that we atheists can have no basis for it as relativists. But nobody really thinks it through, to realize that we are all  relativists, and that our relative definition evolves in each culture over time, with concepts bleeding-over from culture to culture and rights movements changing the entire landscape of what was once considered acceptable and moral.

The accusation that atheists have no basis for morality flies in the face of the fact that even animal societies can be demonstrated to behave in a self-sacrificial and "moral" way under experimental conditions, and that it is observed in all human societies, whether secular or religious, even though it varies and changes. Humans make rules. We make societies. We make morals. It is the fundamental definition of what we are: the moral, intelligent, social animal.