(Today at 2:04 am)emjay Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions.  It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods.  If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions.  If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions.  This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering.  Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no.  I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else.  Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is.  It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe.  But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true.  I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact.  How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad?  Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad?  When we talk about evil?

With you saying the OP is a moral realist, like you, and I don't know if that relates to this but... have I got things the wrong way round? Have I got the chicken and egg the wrong way round, so to speak, in that do you believe he or people like he, are treating the 'words of god(s)' as secondary validation of existing 'moral opinions' rather than the other way round... having those 'opinions' dictated as it were, to them by whatever 'words of god(s)' are currently, but changeably, in vogue for them? Is that what all this is about? Ie, in your opinion, is he saying that the only way his existing (rather than dictated) opinions could be objective/absolute is if god(s) existed? If so, my opinion remains pretty much the same as before on that, that in a world of beings, plural (actual or potential), no single being, however powerful, can be considered the source of absolute/'objective' moral truths. Does that make sense?

Personally I don't think those are mutually exclusive, and which takes preferences can be influenced by other factors, for example some people are homophobic because like the op they think a deity demands it, and they can't or won't think for themselves, others seem far happier about their deity demanding it as it is an innate prejudice they want to indulge.

(11 hours ago)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(Today at 4:28 am)Sheldon Wrote: Almost as if theistic moral assertions are not just subjective, but relative as well. See the SS that perpetrated the Holocaust were Christians, the Southern plantation owners who owned slaves were Christians, ISIS are theists, so were the 9/11 terrorist, now Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, yet they were all content to commit indiscriminate murder, just like the deity depicted in the bible. Go figure?

Now one thing is obvious, no universal objective law stopped them, and their actions are at least as likely to be condemned as immoral by atheists as they are by theists.

Yeah, but Stalin and Pol Pot couldn’t have been motivated by atheism, since it’s impossible to be driven by atheism to commit atrocities. How would someone jump from not accepting theistic claims about God to deciding to murder people? Yes, you could point to anti-theism, but that’s not atheism—at least not universally—as you can’t go from “I don’t accept the existence of gods” to “and therefore kill all theists.”

Well atheism has no doctrinal teachings if that's what you mean, but they can absorb doctrine from other ideologies and follow them despite them being pernicious, all that is need is to follow such doctrine uncritically, just as one might of course if one believed they were the absolute opinion of an infallible deity, and it must therefore be "good" to obey them. 

Most research recognises that atheists are at least as moral as theists, but one distinction is that they tend tv weight the consequences of actions as a primary factor in deciding if the act is moral, rather than following doctrinal teachings.

(11 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote: I understand why you feel this way, but the way I see it, these threads are not just for the edification of the op, so that he is utterly closed minded doesn't negate the thread's utility for others like me who want to learn and understand more about the topic. 

At the very least it's a chance to subject my own views and ideas to critical scrutiny, and that can't be a bad thing.

100% agree

Of course there is also the unknown crowd of lurkers, particularly people already deconstructing or doubting their religion. People like OP, no matter what we say, will push those furhter to non belief. Its just a waste of time, at some point, when people get so openly dishonest that they deny what they just plainly said, for everyone to see. When they demand a certain answer to their question, but refuse to engage in discourse about (the bigger picture) how ill formred and loaded their original question was.

Maybe, in another 30 pages you will get to the point where the objective morals of his god will become topic, when he will again will try to force an entire forum to give him the only answers he is willing to accept. I have more intersting stuff to do (like getting a new brake system on public roads by next summer).

For those (lurkers) it may be of interest what the distince differences of objective morals, absolute morals and diving command theory is. Because i bet a paycheck OP thinks his god has objectoive morals, when OP actually is a proponent to divine command theory.

Objective morals:
Moral facts, independent of any opinion or mind, including a gods mind. An objetive moral fact is true, always, to anyone.period.
Christians often claim to have them, but actually nobody ever has found one. Apart from basing your morals on human well being, which i proposed and which is as close as you can get. OP refused to engage on this, for "good" reasons. If any of the christian gods morals were objective, god would be objectively be evil/bad, by unnecessarily killing babies, ordering rape and plunder.
If you give rules you dont plan to adhere to yourself, you are hardly the most benevolent person, godly or not. If anything, the standard for a god shoud be higher than for any mortal, not the other way around.

Absolute morals:
Killing is wrong (killing, not murdering!), always. It turns out, its not. Self defense: Its a moral duty to (if necessary!) kill an attacker and keep him form killing you or his victim. Christians also often argue this it what makes their moral system superior to a secular one. Secular ones are always fluent and relative and moving...as you can see from the current point of discussion you are with him. Being more rigid (which christianity actually is not: see all the atrocities in the OT commanded by god) does not make your ethics better or more true.

Divine command theory:
Its right because god saz so.
This is what most christians (most probably OP too) actually adhere too. It can easily be exposed as being immoral and the humans adhering to it being amoral, at best. I tried to point this out from the start in post #2 of this thread, but it went completely above OPs head: Baby killing. Many christians think its about what god would do (order them to do), but in reality its about what they are able and willing to do!

Its a fact that god ordered killing of babies in the OT
Its a fact that its wrong to disobey divine commands (according to their own religion)
God never changes (omni...stuff, you know)
It is in his character to possibly order you to kill babies in the immediate future

It is therefore the right thing to do if you are ordered to!

As an adherent to divine command theory you only have two choices now:
#1 You agree that killing babies is the right thing to do, which is obviously horrific to anyone who is not a phsychopath
#2 Admit that you would disobey god, and this should make any christian seriously doubt their theology, or even question their faith

This is what should have been discussed and clarifed at the very beginning of this horrible thread, but OP is not interested in open discourse, he has other, more egoistic goals in mind obviously.

People who are more savvy with this stuff may correct me if i am wrong.

(Yesterday at 11:54 pm)Kitan Etos Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:56 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: So then nothing can be wrong

Something can be wrong for you. Even with you and a group with which you might affiliate. Just be respectful in understanding that not everyone will share your perspective and please be mindful of not forcing that belief on others.

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

(11 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote:

(Today at 2:04 am)emjay Wrote: With you saying the OP is a moral realist, like you, and I don't know if that relates to this but... have I got things the wrong way round? Have I got the chicken and egg the wrong way round, so to speak, in that do you believe he or people like he, are treating the 'words of god(s)' as secondary validation of existing 'moral opinions' rather than the other way round... having those 'opinions' dictated as it were, to them by whatever 'words of god(s)' are currently, but changeably, in vogue for them? Is that what all this is about? Ie, in your opinion, is he saying that the only way his existing (rather than dictated) opinions could be objective/absolute is if god(s) existed? If so, my opinion remains pretty much the same as before on that, that in a world of beings, plural (actual or potential), no single being, however powerful, can be considered the source of absolute/'objective' moral truths. Does that make sense?

Personally I don't think those are mutually exclusive, and which takes preferences can be influenced by other factors, for example some people are homophobic because like the op they think a deity demands it, and they can't or won't think for themselves, others seem far happier about their deity demanding it as it is an innate prejudice they want to indulge.

Yeah, I understand that... that there can be two sides to that coin, and believe me, I've seen both, sadly more the latter than the former, but nonetheless, that's not what I really meant here. It's just pretty much the first time I've seen a Christian talk with what could amount to 'empathy'... rather than just referring to authority, ie if he wants to prevent suffering regardless of what his magic book says, or doesn't say, about it, ie as an innate belief rather than just something he read, in the latest flavour of the month, then that's at least a little bit of a step up... ie not as superficial as I assumed it was.

(Today at 4:02 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:11 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: 1) From a personal perspective, I believe murder is wrong because it robs someone of their chance to experience life, plus hurts those close to the victim.
2) Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.
3) I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer.
4) To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder.
5) Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

5) "diminished understanding means diminished choice, and this means  diminished moral culpability"

Who made up this standard? Is it just your opinion? Or is it a fact of reality? If it is, show me how.

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 11:54 pm)Kitan Etos Wrote: Something can be wrong for you. Even with you and a group with which you might affiliate. Just be respectful in understanding that not everyone will share your perspective and please be mindful of not forcing that belief on others.

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

I see how it works. You don’t.

Boru

@AngelThMan

Quote: Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.

Just because something is an opinion doesn’t make it wrong, you great whirling arsefardle.

Boru

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 11:54 pm)Kitan Etos Wrote: Something can be wrong for you. Even with you and a group with which you might affiliate. Just be respectful in understanding that not everyone will share your perspective and please be mindful of not forcing that belief on others.

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

No I don't have to respect anyone else's moral choices, part of what it means to be human is to have autonomy of thought. I can respect their right to express their opinions, even if they are morally repugnant to me, it doesn't follow that I have to respect those opinions, or any actions that follow from them.

Quote:So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

No, I don’t. I consider them utter bastards and have no respect for them at all.