Poisoning threads with discussions about morality is objectively morally wrong

Thank you

Well yes, the golden rule. That's it. Morality can be refined down to that. You can say God tells you to use the golden rule, I can say it's obvious to me. You don't need much more than the golden rule.

I appreciate your replies, I rarely get a debate on here (with theists) that doesn't nosedive into nonsense very quickly.

As for the big questions, I am comfortable to say I don't know. I don't know where the universe came from. I don't know if there is any purpose to anything. I don't claim that there is any objective morality, and if there is, it's still subjective to God and I don't care about his opinion. If it amounts to the golden rule, then you're using the same standard as me but just making the extra assumption that God is somehow involved. Other Christians may also use the golden rule but interpret it differently.

I'm comfortable saying I don't know. And I would assume that you don't know either, but you've adopted a belief system which attempts to answer these questions. I don't find those answers compelling or necessary. I'd rather have no answer and keep looking, than settle for a made-up one.

I do understand a lot of people are uncomfortable saying "I don't know". It's one of the big pulls of religion.

Morality is man made and subjective, yes. No one has the final say. We decide together as a society. I understand you may not find it acceptable, but that is how it is. There is no alternative! What other alternative could there be, since theists can't agree either? God doesn't have the final say, because he doesn't do anything. A book from 2000 years ago only has so much worth in a discussion, even if he did write it.

If he wanted us all to have the same morality, then presumably we would. So either he has failed, or this is a faulty assumption.

I suppose you would say I get my golden rule from God too. In that case, it amounts to an unnecessary extra assumption, when the golden rule can easily be explained by evolution in a scientific way.

I don't know if we're going to make any more progress, but I enjoyed the debate, thank you! I appreciate being taken seriously

If you want to test your beliefs, the question remains: if God ordered you to kill your family, would you do it? Only one religious theist ever in my experience has answered this question without a dodge. For me it's easy, no. Get bent, God.

(July 17, 2015 at 12:52 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Wow. Another discussion about morality. Yay. /sarcasm

Seriously, can't this discussion be had in one of the 52,564 threads that already exist about it? Does it really need to poison every goddamn thread?

That's just your immoral atheist-ness leaking out.

That Penn Jillette guy said it best (I love him).

I have killed and raped exactly the number of times I wanted to. It just so happens that number is zero.

I think it's funny that some believers insist we must have a fully articulated ontology and metaphysics to justify something as simple and easy to understand as the so-called Silver Rule (which I prefer to the positively worded Golden Rule).

(July 17, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: I think it's funny that some believers insist we must have a fully articulated ontology and metaphysics to justify something as simple and easy to understand as the so-called Silver Rule (which I prefer to the positively worded Golden Rule).

If we ever get to the point where overpopulation becomes a problem and we no longer have any reason to try to keep everyone alive, do you think this golden rule would still stand?

(honest question btw, please don't respond back with snark/etc)

Whoah, what!?

What just happened!

We don't have a reason to keep everyone alive now, objectively. I would hope everyone works together to reduce overpopulation. Not enough is being done, certainly.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting exactly?

(July 17, 2015 at 1:22 pm)robvalue Wrote: Whoah, what!?

What just happened!

We don't have a reason to keep everyone alive now.

treat others the way you want to be treated would include doing everything to save the life of a person who needs help, right?

Yeah...

(Previous post edited for clarity)

(July 17, 2015 at 1:23 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah...

(Previous post edited for clarity)

If the only reason we have for treating others as they would want to be treated (and thus save a dying person, for example), is because it is ultimately best for us individually by being best for society, then how does that change if overpopulation is a problem and it would be better for us to just let a person die rather than doing everything we can to save them?