Why are you saying "don't get caught"? What kind of thing would you decide is moral that this would become an issue? In theory it is arbitrary, but in practice most of us have empathy and so wouldn't choose to do certain things.

I'm not talking about a theoretical random person, I'm focusing on you as an individual. So are you saying you would stop and rethink? You can still choose to follow what you thought was the correct "objective morality". Does it not line up with what you would personally consider moral?

I've heard a whole lot of religious people say this, that without religion they can/would "do anything". But then in practice, if they do lose faith, they find out that actually they don't want to kill and rape anyway. Do you want to? If not, what is it you want to do that would change from how you are now?

(January 9, 2016 at 7:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Really throwing hardballs huh, lol?  Do you expect any answer other than "No"?  Exterminating people doesn't seem to be looking out for their interests.  Your question was absurd at it's outset.

Seems we need to modify the definition then.

Why, to keep people like yourself from blowing a gasket?  I don't think it would work. Are we done talking about exterminating people now?

The thing is, I "can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" too.

As many people have said, I rape, murder and steal just as much as I want to. The amount I want to happens to be zero.

Some people may actually want to do them. Even so, wanting to and doing them are two different things. But if believing in God is literally all that stops you suddenly becoming a borderline psycopath (people in general) then by all means keep believing. I just don't personally believe that most people who think this way would really act how they predict without a god belief. I don't think I've ever heard of a mentally sound person leaving religion and then going nuts. All the stories I've heard are quite the opposite.

(January 10, 2016 at 10:32 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't think I've ever heard of a mentally sound person leaving religion and then going nuts. All the stories I've heard are quite the opposite.

THIS X 1000

Also, what am I even saying? This forum is full of members who used to be theists. None of those are going around being evil.

Of course, I don't say it would never happen. But it happens way less frequently than some people seem to think it would from inside religion. People also then realize some things they thought were immoral under religious dogma are actually harmless.

(January 10, 2016 at 10:41 am)robvalue Wrote: Also, what am I even saying? This forum is full of members who used to be theists. None of those are going around being evil.

Of course, I don't say it would never happen. But it happens way less frequently than some people seem to think it would from inside religion. People also then realize some things they thought were immoral under religious dogma are actually harmless.

According to the biblical fairy tale a person is only immoral if he refuses to obey.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.

Societies that would have an "every man for himself" ethic, would just not last. They would fall apart, and those moral members of the society would start their own society with a better moral ethic, or find one that exists that they could join.

But more importantly, the vast majority of people are psychologically healthy, and have no compunction to behave immorally.

If society became "every man for himself" I would rape, murder, steal, as much as I want. And the amount I want to rape, murder and steal is exactly zero.

Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people?  If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.

No.

You know how you can tell? Ask the people that are the targets of the genocide if they feel that their well being is going to be harmed or not.

(January 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Old Baby Wrote: 1. When I say "nothing happened", I mean that I never had the awesome salvation stories that others did.  I heard other people testifying about when they got saved.  Many of them could pinpoint it to a particular date and could talk about all the immediate evidence of this great change that took place in their lives afterward.  For me, I never felt a single thing different.  I was sincere and convinced it was true and wanted to live a life for God, but nothing ever took place to make me any different when I got up than I was when I knelt down.

For some people the change is immediate.  For some people it isn't.  I prayed the sinners prayer multiple times and I never felt any different when I got done.  It wasn't until years later looking back I realized when and how I came to faith.  It grieves me that there was no one at the time to encourage you.  Sanctification is a life long process and won't be perfected until the resurrection.

(January 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Old Baby Wrote: 2. When I say that I never received any additional strength, that's exactly what I meant.  I saw other people kicking bad habits and forgiving their enemies and getting new positive attitudes, but I never felt any change.  Yes, I could give myself a fresh outlook and a better attitude.  I could try hard to kick habits and pray and agonize over my sins, but that's all that happened.  I never felt any additional power to be any different than I was before.  It was all human will.

What about Paul and the thorn in his side?  He prayed that God would remove it but God responded that His grace is sufficient for him.  Maybe that is the situation for you.  Maybe God was bringing you to trust only in Him and not in yourself.

(January 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Old Baby Wrote: 3. You're suggesting it was the "accuser" aka Satan who made me feel guilty for my sins, not God.  Even as a believer, I never understood this.  God hates sin.  Satan loves sin.  Why would Satan make me feel bad about sinning?  Why would God be the one saying "Don't worry about your sin because my son took care of that."  It makes no sense and always seemed to be a perversion of scripture to me.  I think it's entirely more likely that my guilt was a result of the conditioning of my conscience to accept that sin as defined by the bible is a moral crime.

At the cross Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (Col. 2:14).  The greek word translated here as 'blotted out' is likened to the erasing of a chalk board.  The ordinances that are against us have to do with the law.  One effect of the law is our sin debt to God.  Couple that with 2 Corinthians 5:21 where we are made the righteousness of God.  So God, having completely erased our sin debt and having given us His righteousness, has no reason to accuse us of anything.  This is strictly in the context of salvation (soteriology).  We are still in a process of sanctification (being conformed to the image and likeness of Christ), and in this sense we sin and God is bringing us into Christ's image, but in the legal sense (soteriologically) we are declared righteous (without sin).

(January 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Old Baby Wrote: P.S. To address your signature... yes, I would.

You're the first to address the question, kudos!

---

(January 9, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It can't be too difficult to answer that question RR, what with the numbers of people who go through life being "moral" in a manner completely recognizable to -you- as moral...without having any such objective, transcendent definition...for whether or not they feel like tossing old ladies into the street......

Observation is not ontology, it's begging the question.

---

(January 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.

Please define well being.  Who decides which behaviors lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible and how is that determined?

---

(January 9, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I -already- consider some things to be moral or immoral that my own society disagrees upon (as I'm sure you do too).  You are completely failing to present a hypothetical to me.  I'm a moral utilitarian.

(January 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm)robvalue Wrote: Me too. My morality only partly lines up with society. Mine, that is. It probably barely lines up at all with some others.

Moral autonomy   ^^^^^

(January 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm)robvalue Wrote: What is "acceptable" is decided at an individual level, and by societal norms. These are both dynamic. There is no transcript. The idea that "morality" should be considered to be the same by everyone, and from everyone's point of view is absurd.

Why then were you "scared by my answer?" (Post #14)

(January 10, 2016 at 10:41 am)robvalue Wrote: Also, what am I even saying? This forum is full of members who used to be theists. None of those are going around being evil.

With the exception of not loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

(January 10, 2016 at 2:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people?  If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.

No.

You know how you can tell? Ask the people that are the targets of the genocide if they feel that their well being is going to be harmed or not.

You're not remaining consistent with your original definition in answering the question.  If the harm caused to the targets of the genocide is less than the benefit to the rest of society, then the action would be moral.

Orange: You're asking why I'm scared that you'd kill your son if you heard a voice in your head telling you to? I'm scared on behalf of your sons, if you have any, because I have empathy. I'm scared because all it would apparently take is a hallucination you deemed to be "God" telling you murder, and you would. I'm worried that you would totally abdicate all moral responsibility to another agent.

So yes, moral autonomy. And your entire absence of morality in this instance sets off warning lights in my sense of morality. "Moral" has clearly got nothing to do with human wellbeing anymore if anything God tells you to do is "moral". Is there anything you would refuse to do, if he ordered it?

I'm not saying you're objective immoral for holding such a position, because it's a nonsensical concept. I'm subjectively of the opinion that it an amoral way to act, at best.

So, Orange, you're not done talking about exterminating people...you'd simply rather take it up with someone else?  This is a common "misconception" regarding moral utilitarianism.  It does not play calculus -with- human lives..it plays calculus -in service- of human lives.  That you see extermination within the definition has nothing to do with the definition, or with moral utilitarianism, and everything to do with you. There is no amount of change we could make which would prevent you from seeing boogeymen.

Glad that's been cleared up......are we done talking about exterminating people now...........?