(August 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm)stephenmills1000 Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 1:36 pm)genkaus Wrote: No. The listed attributes are not only incompatible with reality, they are incompatible with each-other. If you are listing these attributes as tautological, then by definition god would not exist.

Can you expound for me a bit? Can you define what you mean or view "reality" to be?

I'd rather not do it here. There are many, many threads in this forum alone that address both of those questions. Starting that discussion here would derail the ongoing one. Besides, you didn't answer my question.

Pages pass because I am in a very different time zone, so please forgive me for going back a few given I think it would be incorrect of me not to respond to something asked by Stephen directly of me. By the way, did I think I should answer because it is written in the bible, or because some verse might be made to allude to it, or because I think the best strategy for getting questions answered is to demonstrate integrity by completing one's own side of the transaction? My, it sounds almost like the rule common to every single society which recorded such things.

Stephen asked where do I get my morality. That has already been adequately described by some other people and is contained in part in my earlier post. I have moral objectives related to staying alive and breeding and taking pleasure in the exercise of my senses and abilities and, remarkably enough, these objectives prove best satisfied by treating other people well rather than by casual murder or abuse. The theist notion that radiating circles of interest lead inexorably to mutual destruction is just plain silly really. Does that really need to be discussed?

My strategies include those I mentioned in that earlier post. You can toss a bit of Kant into the following although I am not trying to be rigorous here.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: What are your moral objectives, stephen?

If you can identify that then you can measure the success of strategies toward those objectives using principles of utility and consequences, for example.

In answer to genkaus, Stephen wrote

stephenmills1000 Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:42 am)genkaus Wrote: If they are rooted in anyone's command or nature, then they are dependent upon that entity and therefore are not objective.

They are dependent upon that entity yes, but that entity is independent of me, therefore is by definition objective.

Are you really saying, Stephen, that the determinant of whether something is objectively moral depends on it being dependent on something which is independent of you? If so, I can provide you with a perfectly objective morality, not dependent on any mind beyond that you have agreed to follow the rules emerging. To say the only objective morality comes from a deity is false. To say morality comes from a deity serves only the purpose of absolute followership, like any dictatorship, and strips your moral judgement from you leaving you only to follow orders.

Meanwhile, you have made no reply to my questions. I expect that this is because of your keenness (already expressed a couple of times) to limit the discussion to what you call moral ontology, question-begging to the extent it assumes an objective morality rather than moral objectives, and not keen at all to talk about your moral epistemology. So, I ask again:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: If [you obtain your morality from] the bible, how do you determine what is true or literal, symbolic or false, or human error in the transcription?

If [from] godly commands, by what means do you receive them?

Incidentally, chocolate or vanilla, pie or cake, are not moral questions as you well know, Stephen, so why did you pretend such a question was pertinent to moral decisions without a god? Are you being misleading or merely misled?

Quote: Morality is innate in all of us. To say that we didn't know right from wrong before the "burning bush" is ridiculous. I doubt very much we would have made this far if we didn't.

If that was the true,moral rules would be universal,absolute and unchanging,but that is no the case. Morality is based on self interest.IE survival.

PS at least some of the 613 commandments were lifted from Hammurabi's code.

(August 31, 2012 at 7:13 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote: Morality is innate in all of us. To say that we didn't know right from wrong before the "burning bush" is ridiculous. I doubt very much we would have made this far if we didn't.

If that was the true,moral rules would be universal,absolute and unchanging,but that is no the case. Morality is based on self interest.IE survival.

PS at least some of the 613 commandments were lifted from Hammurabi's code.

But genocide promotes your own survival by eradicating competition for limited resources.

So how did genocide become evil?

(August 31, 2012 at 8:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...Holy shit I never thought I would see this day. A Christian who admits the immoralities of the bible and the conundrums Christians must face in the realms of morality.

My mind. You just exploded it. And my day just got a little brighter. ...Though that might be the residual effects of the cranial detonation...

The good old Church of England. Welcome to UK Christianity... where even some of the vicars are atheists. Compared to the USA, the UK is a secular paradise.

Quote:So how did genocide become evil?

I just finished saying morality is neither universal nor unchanging AND based on self interest.. Do keep up,there's a good chap.

They get their base morality from religion, but have learned to evolve that morality as they have been exposed to more liberal and humanist ideas and ways of thinking.

Christian 'morality' is innately im-moral,also based on self interest


Carrot and stick motivation. The carrot is the reward of heaven. The stick is guilt and fear of hell. The moral man does what is right for its own and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

EG The Catholic 'act of contrition' (short version) said in confession and in extremis:

Quote:O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

I get my morality from fortune cookies, after-school specials, and the back of cereal boxes.

(August 31, 2012 at 8:23 am)genkaus Wrote: If the Christian interpretation is followed, refraining form committing an act in accordance to the rule is immoral as well. Therefore, according to Christianity, if you don't spend you life giving away your money to others and serving them, you are being immoral. Ergo, Christianity sucks!

I think you have the basic idea right, though your conclusion is one I disagree with. Christians can't measure up to to the example set by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. That standard is impossible and is regarded well even by those in other regions, and by some atheist too. As with all people regardless of beliefs, some of us are better at it than others. I suspect you may agree that serving other people is a worthwhile cause, but perhaps I'm wrong.