As noted, I think "anything goes" is simplistic, but if you're really that hung up on it, then whatever - sure, anything goes.

Now, do you have anything of substance? For someone who complains that others are quibbling over semantics, that seems to be all you do.

(March 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm)John V Wrote: Now, do you have anything of substance? For someone who complains that others are quibbling over semantics, that seems to be all you do.

What would you like to talk about?

(March 12, 2013 at 8:07 am)John V Wrote: Always amazes me when people argue that all morality is subjective, but then argue that their own morality is superior. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not clear on why you think that morality cannot be both subjective, and superior. I wouldn't call it easy, but a reasoned discussion can usually root it out when this i the case. Say two people have opposing moralities, but one party agrees (in the course of this discussion) to a number of principles that inform some conclusion on a moral issue that is held by their "opponent". In this case, according only to the agreement between them in the conversation (regardless of whether or not the person is willing to change their stance in light of this) his "opponent has demonstrated that his moral stance is superior to the stance of his adversary in that it is consistent and agree upon by both - but for some odd fucking reason (say "godwillsit") the other guy makes a hard left turn at 90 and reaches a conclusion utterly alien to everything that preceded it.

Or, say both parties hold the same opinion on some moral issue, but the justification behind one is "magic" whereas the other is well reasoned and well supported. Again, subjective, but superior. Of course, without any agreement in some area it's all going to be subjective between them (even if it isn't).

(March 12, 2013 at 4:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: What would you like to talk about?

Well, why don't you prove that Biblical morality is inferior to some other morality.

(March 12, 2013 at 4:55 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 12, 2013 at 4:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: What would you like to talk about?

Well, why don't you prove that Biblical morality is inferior to some other morality.

How devious.

I, for one, vastly prefer a society in which empathy is valued and human life is respected. I like being able to live in a society that does not expect me to murder my child if he misbehaves, or that would murder me if I picked up sticks on a certain day of the week.

If that strikes you as 'superior' morality, all you need to do is swap out your superstitions and go live in Iran.

(March 12, 2013 at 4:55 pm)John V Wrote: Well, why don't you prove that Biblical morality is inferior to some other morality.

Oh, you've given me such an easy target that I don't know where to begin.

Should I start with the Bible's instructions on how to commit genocide and properly rape the sex slaves you take?

Or perhaps I should begin with prominent examples of genocide and infanticide in the Bible, as instructed by Moses himself?

How about the morality of your god's justice, where he punishes children for the sins of the parents, most famously that all women suffer for what Eve did?

But that's the OT, right? How about what the NT says about the no-brainer moral issue of slavery? Or royalty and dictatorship?

Whatever no-brainer moral issue you like to bring up, be it slavery, genocide, rape, torture, infanticide, dictatorship, incest, child-abuse, misogyny or persecution, the Bible manages to be on the wrong side of every single one. Far from being a timeless source of moral guidance that could only have come from our Creator, it contains the most frightening and repugnant guidelines that have no place in any civilized society.

If the Bible does have anything to teach us about morality, it's that human morality has evolved and progressed since it was written. While I find it disheartening that anyone can read this vile book and feel good about worshiping the monster that it calls a god, I do take great comfort that we've done a lot of growing up since it was penned and hope that we continue our positive moral evolution.

You see, all the moral issues in which the Bible fails, human civilization is succeeding. We've figured out that slavery and genocide are wrong and seek to end them. Given our trajectory, if we can survive our technological adolescence, future human civilization will look back on us with the same revulsion that we may look upon the barbarians that wrote the Bible.

I can go on but I'll give you the opportunity to object that I can't judge the Bible's morality as inferior since you'll predictably assert that I can't prove that rape, genocide or slavery are morally wrong and then I'll school you some more.

(March 12, 2013 at 10:43 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I, for one, vastly prefer a society in which empathy is valued and human life is respected. I like being able to live in a society that does not expect me to murder my child if he misbehaves, or that would murder me if I picked up sticks on a certain day of the week.

Pretty much this. Note that absent any demonstrable objective authority 'what we prefer as a society' is about the best we've got to go on.

...and I'm OK with that.

I should add that probably nobody thinks that modern secular society has perfected morality. That is a claim reserved only for those who believe that raping slaves is a righteous act.

(March 12, 2013 at 10:50 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh, you've given me such an easy target that I don't know where to begin.

Save us all some time and begin with what you believe to be your strongest point.

Quote:Should I start with the Bible's instructions on how to commit genocide and properly rape the sex slaves you take?

Or perhaps I should begin with prominent examples of genocide and infanticide in the Bible, as instructed by Moses himself?

How about the morality of your god's justice, where he punishes children for the sins of the parents, most famously that all women suffer for what Eve did?

But that's the OT, right? How about what the NT says about the no-brainer moral issue of slavery? Or royalty and dictatorship?

Whatever no-brainer moral issue you like to bring up, be it slavery, genocide, rape, torture, infanticide, dictatorship, incest, child-abuse, misogyny or persecution, the Bible manages to be on the wrong side of every single one.

What's the proof that there is a right and wrong side?

Quote:I can go on

Yes, you're quite capable of going on and on without supplying proof of your position.

Quote:but I'll give you the opportunity to object that I can't judge the Bible's morality as inferior since you'll predictably assert that I can't prove that rape, genocide or slavery are morally wrong and then I'll school you some more.

Waiting...still...waiting...

(March 13, 2013 at 8:23 am)John V Wrote: What's the proof that there is a right and wrong side?

Thank you.

Predictably and on-cue, the Christian apologist responds with the old retort of who-are-you-to-judge-(my)-god with a dash of who-can-really-be-sure-of-anything-anyway Solipsism.

Why is rape or slavery or genocide or child-abuse wrong? Because they violate the rights of another as defined by The Social Contract. We do not wish to be raped. We do not wish to be enslaved. We don't want our families killed. We would not wish to be subject to being stoned in the public square for disobedience as children. So we don't allow it for others, not just for my own sake and protection (for what is allowed to happen to another could happen to me) but also to avoid hypocrisy, for how can you prescribe for another what you would not tolerate yourself? The Social Contract is reinforced by our own sense of empathy. We are community animals who depend on one another for survival and so we naturally feel and relate to the pain of others.

And so we come to one of many reasons why secular morality is superior to Biblical or other religious-based morality: it focuses like a laser on what the real point of morality is without getting side-tracked by religion's conflict-of-interest.

Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings, acting with empathy and integrity as we would wish to be treated by others. Secularists have the clearest understanding of this point, which is why our focus is the rights and well-being of others.

Religion has an inherent conflict of interest on the issue. It must first and foremost be concerned with its spread among new members and ideological conformity among its current membership. Spiritual well-being and moral guidance must be, at best, secondary considerations. The result is that the most important "moral concerns" of religion are over victimless crimes such as blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. The "virtues" it primarily espouses and admonishes its members to adopt are similarly useless traits and activities such as prayer, proper observance of rituals and attending church services.

Reading the Bible cover-to-cover allows the reader to notice that most references to "evil" or "abomination" are over such victimless activities that are injurious only to the religion and not to any fellow beings or else these references are to violations of arbitrary taboos such as working on the Sabbath, eating pork or loving someone with similar body parts.

If you don't have time to read the whole Bible, and let's face it, it's a long, badly-written and boring book, just read through the 10 Commandments, vaunted by the faithful as if they were the most profound guidelines of moral behavior. The first four are all about Yahweh, their god, and have nothing to do with how we treat one another. Only four of the ten actually relate to moral principles (how we treat others), don't lie, steal, cheat or murder, and these are no-brainer admonishments part of every culture.

In a nutshell, paraphrasing the old saying, religion is concerned about you doing what you're told, regardless of what's right. Morality is doing what's right, regardless of what you're told.

Clear the religious clutter away. Morality is complex enough without the distractions and conflict of interest that religion brings to the table.