(November 21, 2013 at 9:01 am)genkaus Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Ka-WHAT? hock:

wallym, if this seems to not make sense to you it is because IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Actually, it does make sense - that is, it makes sense that god's existence results in reality being nonsensical. That is precisely the kind of reality described in your Bible - where rules of logic and laws of nature become optional.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Morals are objective because of God, not despite Him. If every moral you come to is solely found "within yourself" that would be the definition of subjective - based on personal tastes. Subject to change on a whim.

And if they are based on your god's personal tastes and subject to his whims, they are equally subjective.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Saying that morals are subjective because God decided them is dragging the concept of God down to an animal level. God is not a dictator. God is not a human. His decisions do not happen in the same way we make decisions.

Irrelevant. The fact that they are dependent on his decisions is what makes them subjective.

No, Not irrelevant. You cannot shrug this idea off and still be talking God.

If you lock me in a box and tell me that every time I push a button I get a candy, it would be true that my reality would be subject to your whims, but not mine. Now, if you remain true to your word, my objective truth becomes what you told me. If I press the button one day and I do not get my m&m's my objective truth begins to become informed on the reality you have placed me in, and may or may not change. I may come up with some subjective conclusions: you are a liar and unreliable. But the objective truth remain with you.
I continue to inform my truth based on my experience, but I have no control over it, and any opinions that I come to are purely based on the experience in the reality you have set up for me.

God has given us more than a button to push. And for us to pretend that we can understand every decision that is made by an omnipotent being is wildly unreasonable.

(November 21, 2013 at 9:01 am)genkaus Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 6:02 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Well, I can't speak for the "sheeple" that you mentioned, but I am wondering where objective morals come from without a God?

IF objective morals exist, then they'd come from fundamental facts regarding human psychology.

(November 20, 2013 at 6:02 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Without a soul, isn't man an animal enslaved by the chemical reactions that cause his instincts?

No. His ability to reason takes him beyond that.

Where does human reason come from? Are you saying that there is more to brain function than chemical reactions and electrical impulses?

(November 21, 2013 at 9:01 am)genkaus Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 6:30 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Well, the objective godless argument sinks before it hits the pond. Everyone figures out their own morals? From deep inside them? Like, "I don't know, its just hard to explain. I know it to be true and so it is for me."

What does that sound like to you? Like someone talking about GOD?

It sounds EXACTLY like that - which is why it is a bullshit argument that only a theist would use.

If morality comes from a psychologist, we are all in freud a lot of trouble.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:07 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think that this is an oversimplification of morality. If you base morals simply on how we respond to certain stimuli you come up with a morality that says "Anything you can get away with is alright."

You use pain as an example, which makes sense for the most part, but once you leave that arena the morality starts to break down.

When you steal from someone - for the most part there is no pain. Now, we might say that we have the social contract that says "I don't steal, you don't steal." But what if I can steal form a rich man knowing that he would never find out about it? Is that still moral? It breaks the contract, but the rich man never knows, so what he don't know wont hurt him. Nothing comes from the stimuli (me stealing) except that I get that new 80 inch television I been dreaming of.

Maybe you bring up integrity, honor, dignity. But these have little value (cause little positive stimuli) if no one knows it. BUT if you are known as an honorable man and no one will ever find out that you are a thief, it doesn't matter. You have no loss and all gain.

In the purely rational and scientific world, self-sacrifice self-restraint fall short. Stepping in front of a bus to save an old woman makes no sense, unless you get a page in the daily news.

I think it says a lot more about your morals than ours when you imply that the only thing which keeps you from acting like a completely self-centered degenerate is the feeling that a god is watching you and taking notes.

(November 23, 2013 at 2:32 am)Ryantology Wrote: I think it says a lot more about your morals than ours when you imply that the only thing which keeps you from acting like a completely self-centered degenerate is the feeling that a god is watching you and taking notes.

Are you saying that if I give food to the hungry it is less moral than if you give food to the hungry?

This sounds a bit self-righteous. Not to mention judgmental, with you assuming things about my character you have no way of knowing.

(November 23, 2013 at 4:18 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: This sounds a bit self-righteous. Not to mention judgmental, with you assuming things about my character you have no way of knowing.

You're the one sitting there asking the question, "how do you know not to hurt people, if a magic man isn't telling you so?" If you don't like what that says about you, then perhaps there's some reflection on the question you asked, that you need to be doing.

The mere fact that you got offended shows us this: you don't just not hurt people because god says not to. There are other reasons, yes?

(November 23, 2013 at 4:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: You're the one sitting there asking the question, "how do you know not to hurt people, if a magic man isn't telling you so?" If you don't like what that says about you, then perhaps there's some reflection on the question you asked, that you need to be doing.

The mere fact that you got offended shows us this: you don't just not hurt people because god says not to. There are other reasons, yes?

I'm not offended. Its fine, just part of the conversation.

And yes, I do not hurt people because God says not to, but also because I would not want to be hurt. Treating others as you would want to be treated.

Also, I was raised not to hit. My parents told me to (and my father was an atheist, if that matters to the conversation).

But there are times when pain is unavoidable, yes? How do you figure those situations out if you are only going off of the pain theory?

And what about in situations where there is no pain to be dealt with? Theft? Adultery? Deception? Are these things still immoral, and how do you know?

And what do you do when someone disagrees with you?

(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: No, Not irrelevant. You cannot shrug this idea off and still be talking God.

Yes I can. And I do.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: If you lock me in a box and tell me that every time I push a button I get a candy, it would be true that my reality would be subject to your whims, but not mine. Now, if you remain true to your word, my objective truth becomes what you told me. If I press the button one day and I do not get my m&m's my objective truth begins to become informed on the reality you have placed me in, and may or may not change. I may come up with some subjective conclusions: you are a liar and unreliable. But the objective truth remain with you.
I continue to inform my truth based on my experience, but I have no control over it, and any opinions that I come to are purely based on the experience in the reality you have set up for me.

If your reality was truly subject to my whims then your reality would be subjective. The fact that it is subject to my whims and not yours does not magically make it objective. The truth, in that case, is not objective.

However, the fact is, even if I put you in a box with the candy button, your reality is still not subject to my whims. I cannot change the nature of the box simply on a whim - I have to work in order to do so - and even then, I cannot change it any whimsical way, only in limited ones. That's what makes your reality in the box objective.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: God has given us more than a button to push. And for us to pretend that we can understand every decision that is made by an omnipotent being is wildly unreasonable.

You are the one who keeps insisting that god is capable of changing the nature of the box and the buttons on a whim.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Where does human reason come from? Are you saying that there is more to brain function than chemical reactions and electrical impulses?

You mean the capacity for reason? And yes, brain function is more than chamocal reactions in the same way a computer program is more than electrical pulses.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: If morality comes from a psychologist, we are all in freud a lot of trouble.

Why?

(November 23, 2013 at 4:47 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: And yes, I do not hurt people because God says not to, but also because I would not want to be hurt. Treating others as you would want to be treated.

Well, there you go! That's what I find most strange about being asked where I derive my morals, because I doubt that the christian doing the asking really thinks their god made its moral laws based on nothing, like an arbitrary set of random rules, just to have them. They must think there's some practical reason behind them that has applications in the real world, surely?

Why wouldn't an atheist also be able to see those practical uses?

Quote:But there are times when pain is unavoidable, yes? How do you figure those situations out if you are only going off of the pain theory?

And what about in situations where there is no pain to be dealt with? Theft? Adultery? Deception? Are these things still immoral, and how do you know?

There's more kinds of pain than just the physical. Theft causes material harm to the victim, if everyone did it society wouldn't function as well, therefore, it's immoral. Adultery causes emotional pain, and while it's lower order in the sense that it won't cause anything in the way of material damage, those feelings count for something. It's also something of a breach of agreement, which is generally frowned upon. Deception, same deal: at the very least, there's emotional pain involved, though people to deceive with motives, mostly.

Quote:And what do you do when someone disagrees with you?

We can figure these things out; we're able to evaluate these things with regards to their pros and cons, consequences... all manner of things. Sure, it's something that needs some thought, and there'll always be disagreements, but there's only a finite set of actions possible in any given situation, and one of them has to be the best possible course. Not getting there right away just means we're learning through out imperfections.

Isn't it more noble to think things through like that, than to turn to someone else to just tell you what you should believe?

(November 23, 2013 at 4:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: You're the one sitting there asking the question, "how do you know not to hurt people, if a magic man isn't telling you so?" If you don't like what that says about you, then perhaps there's some reflection on the question you asked, that you need to be doing.

The mere fact that you got offended shows us this: you don't just not hurt people because god says not to. There are other reasons, yes?

The idea that knowing not to hurt people is somehow evident and universal doesn't exactly mesh with human behavior throughout history, or even now.

(November 23, 2013 at 11:07 am)wallym Wrote: The idea that knowing not to hurt people is somehow evident and universal doesn't exactly mesh with human behavior throughout history, or even now.

But there are practical reasons not to, really.

Besides, not to be flippant, but if there was simply no practical reason not to hurt people, we'd still be fighting the first world war, since there'd be no reason to negotiate peace. Every day, billions of people somehow manage to go about their days without assaulting others:the idea that people can't see a reason to be peaceful is largely refuted by the fact that most of us are.

Since Jesus liked to talk in parables, let me try one of my own.

In ancient times, before there were cities and kings, a small nomadic tribe traversed the lands, forever moving with the seasons, forever in search of food. Within this tribe there was a man, a man called Jacob. Jacob was an intelligent man, someone who would always observe the land around him and soak in knowledge. One day, Jacob was walking through a field when he came upon five grazing cows. Two of these cows were calves, feeding from their mothers. He approached the cows silently, spear in hand. Just one of these cows would feed his tribe. But as he approached, he noticed the calf feeding. He noticed the cows grazing. One cow would be a great meal for the tribe. Five cows would be a great feast. But what about many cows? What if he could trap the cows? Build some form of barrier to keep them in the field? Trapped inside, the cows could graze, he could provide fresh water and with a little luck, five cows would become many cows. He also began to wonder about the milk being fed to the calves. Was it suitable for him and his tribe? It would surely provide nutrients.

As Jacob pondered this, he began to imagine a continuous and plentiful food supply for the tribe. No longer would they need to travel in search for food. They could stay and always be full. Of course it took a lot of convincing and many years for Jacob's idea to bear fruit. The nomadic tribe left Jacob behind to tend to his insane dream but when they returned a few seasons later, they found him fat on milk and beef, his spear discarded. The land transformed into a farm. The tribe congratulated Jacob and they too settled down to enjoy what Jacob had created.

Many years later, a young member of the tribe, Isaac, wandered out from the village towards Jacob's farm. His journey left him hungry and Jacob was happy to share a meal. But Isaac's hunger could not be sated. He looked out at the field of grazing cattle and asked Jacob if he could have just one cow to kill and eat. But Jacob said no. The cattle who were to provide meat to the tribe were not yet ready for slaughter. Isaac didn't care. Even though his stomach was full thanks to Jacob's hospitality, he longed for more and if Jacob would not give him more, he would take it. In a fit of blind rage, Isaac killed Jacob and then slaughtered the fattest cow.

Isaac returned to the village, his stomach full, his appetite eased, the remains of the slaughtered cow on his back. It was two days before Jacob's dead body was found. When the village elder asked who had killed him, Isaac proudly stepped forward.

"Why did you kill Jacob?" the Elder asked.
"Because I was hungry," Isaac responded. "Because Jacob has all these cattle and he would not share."
"Those cattle are for the whole village," the Elder replied solemnly.
"There are plenty of cattle left. More than enough to feed us well through the winter."
"But you don't understand. Jacob was the only one who knew how to raise cattle and grow wheat. We have enough food for this winter, but what about the next? And the next?"

There were no laws within the tribe. Isaac's actions hadn't been against any kind of rules. Murder did not exist. But as the village elder would explain, Isaac's actions had not only doomed Jacob to death, but also doomed the tribe to starvation in years to come. His actions had been detrimental to the survival of their society, thus it was deemed wrong. It was deemed a crime.



And that, in a long-winded way, is the essence of morality. We are social creatures. We depend on each other to survive. Any action that threatens the survival and progression of the society is wrong. At a basic level, that's where right and wrong comes from. Our complex social structure and advanced intelligence has evolved that basic concept of morality but ultimately, morality is basic evolution and its origins are no different than the behaviour we see in other social creatures. Evolution gave us basic morality for our survival and then we built on it

The argument is often made that if there is no objective morality, there is no right and wrong. This is a load of bull. If all laws were thrown out tomorrow and everything became completely legal, society would collapse and we would doom ourselves. We aren't moral because a magic man in the cloud told us to be. We're moral because if we weren't, everything we've built would crumble. It's ultimately a very simple idea. What benefits the individual should benefit the collective and what benefits the collective should benefit the individual.