My views on objective morality

[Mr.wizard]

Excusing rape doesn't have to involve, nor have I ever claimed that it did involve, claiming that rape is okay.  Only that it is excusable, or that complicity in it is excusable.  

It's an objectively bad thing™ and people who are engaged in it or complicit to it are bad people™....I'm wholly against it and them...except when.. [fill in this shitty blank with nonsense of your own choosing].  Some fun examples include;

"my god is involved"
"it's part of a plan"
"it benefits us, somehow, to have it included"

I am always against it. I have made that clear. That's exactly what it means to say something is objectively immoral... it means it is always evil and NEVER excusable, for anyone, under any circumstances... no matter who, what, where, when, why, how.

So you admit that god is acting evil and immoral by not stopping rape or any other type of atrocity that occurs?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

All we're doing is kicking around The Problem of Evil, possibly the most-discussed religious philosophy issue. Why, I've never quite figured out.

With respect to those who have been harmed, I don't see it (presuming that this being called "God" exists) as necessarily so that God must intervene in the world in order to be called all-powerful or good. It's a projection of our own desires onto this Being, which is the same mistake we constantly point out to the theists, when they do it in the other direction.

Even if we could say that the only way this Being could be Good/Omniscient/Omnipotent at the same time, I don't see how it follows that He must intevene in this world on that level. I'm sorry, I just don't.

It's why I am a Humanist. I think these issues are ours to fix/mitigate. Perhaps "God" is also a Humanist, in that respect. I don't know... but I DO know that it's not C_L's fault that the Deity is no longer an interventionist.

[Catholic_Lady]

Falls under the same umbrella. Mental illness is a result of natural causes.

But it overrides free will.  Why would God create something like mental illness that overrides a person's free will and causes them to do terrible things? Like shooting up a theater, or an elementary school?

I mean he either created it, or it came about as a result of his creation and he did nothing to stop it (this of course goes by the argument that he does exist.  As Jules Renard said, it'd be much better for his reputation if he does not exist)

Can we really say that these things are objectively moral?  Allowing these things to happen?  If they aren't objectively moral, then how can objective morality come from someone who isn't objectively moral themselves?  If it IS objectively moral, then how is it objectively moral?  Simply because it's what God wants?  That's actually subjective morality.  Because it's subjective to "God's" will.

I have nothing else to add to this that I haven't repeated several times already in this thread. You can either accept my answers or not. 

Sorry to be short, but you're catching me at a bad time, as my patience and good nature in regards to this forum has worn out for the day.

[Catholic_Lady]

I am always against it. I have made that clear. That's exactly what it means to say something is objectively immoral... it means it is always evil and NEVER excusable, for anyone, under any circumstances... no matter who, what, where, when, why, how.

So you admit that god is acting evil and immoral by not stopping rape or any other type of atrocity that occurs?

I have nothing else to add to this that I haven't repeated several times already in this thread. You can either accept my answers or not. 

[Kiekeben]

Excusing rape doesn't have to involve, nor have I ever claimed that it did involve, claiming that rape is okay.  Only that it is excusable, or that complicity in it is excusable.  

It's an objectively bad thing™ and people who are engaged in it or complicit to it are bad people™....I'm wholly against it and them...except when.. [fill in this shitty blank with nonsense of your own choosing].  Some fun examples include;

"my god is involved"
"it's part of a plan"
"it benefits us, somehow, to have it included"

I am always against it. I have made that clear. That's exactly what it means to say something is objectively immoral... it means it is always evil and NEVER excusable, for anyone, under any circumstances... no matter who, what, where, when, why, how.

Let me ask a slightly different question than Mr. Wizard's last one, then: 

Is it ever okay, under any circumstances, to allow a rape to occur when one could easily prevent it without incurring any risk?

I hope you think about that one. And by the way, you have been subjected to quite a bit of abuse here, and I just want to say that, although I understand the indignation of those who have been harsh with you, I also understand the spot you're in - basically, a person like you paints themselves into a corner and can't avoid saying things that they would never say otherwise. Religious people sometimes are put into a situation where they feel like they must defend horrible positions, but it doesn't mean they actually believe that, say, rape or killing children is okay. I think their overall behavior confirms that. The fault is with religion, and the hold it has on people's minds.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Here's a question:

According to some, God gave us free will.  But what about those who have had our Free-Will overridden?  Those who have mental illnesses?  Why would God allow that?  I mean consider for a moment that some people with mental illnesses have committed some horrible crimes.  Even if God wouldn't hold them accountable, he does nothing to stop them despite them not acting of their own free will.  

And what about Natural disasters ripping apart homes and families?  

Not to mention diseases inflicted upon children.

I believe God allows nature to take its course. He does not micromanage the world.

Why? I do not know. I am not God, and I'm ok with that.

You have been saying that a lot, CL, and we have repetitively pointed out the fallacious depravity in the excuse you make "He does not micromanage the world". It is fallacious on account of the responsibility which his said power implies, and depraved on account of the fact that such a god (if he truly exists as you believe he does) was necessarily in that same alley where a rape was committed, he could have stopped it with a word, but he did nothing, nor even help the victim after the perp had taken off. A god with all the power which you say you believe it has should really should be expected to do more than nothing about such a crime, unless it please him to allow it. You don't allow a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g to happen in this universe when you have all the imaginable power in the universe unless it pleases you when it happens. That it pleases your god to allow rape to happen, whether or not he condemns it - this makes him a monster not like some cowardly rapist, it makes him the king of all monsters!

That's how it is with anyone who has all the power, CL. You can believe in a god who allows cruel, nasty shit to happen on this Earth because he isn't really all that powerful, or you can believe in one which is truly in all imaginable ways uber-powerful, but an evil monster. I believe you wouldn't still be here if you weren't keenly aware that this logic cannot be denied, and the question is when are you going to stop pretending.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

With respect to those who have been harmed, I don't see it (presuming that this being called "God" exists) as necessarily so that God must intervene in the world in order to be called all-powerful or good. It's a projection of our own desires onto this Being, which is the same mistake we constantly point out to the theists, when they do it in the other direction.

Even if we could say that the only way this Being could be Good/Omniscient/Omnipotent at the same time, I don't see how it follows that He must intevene in this world on that level. I'm sorry, I just don't.

I would project any desires on a "Supreme (and All-Powerful) Being" which human society would not project on me in the event that I happened to be standing in that alley when the rape took place. Not even reporting the crime is simply not ok - if I should do it, then so the fuck should any god which people believe in!

[Mr.wizard]

With respect to those who have been harmed, I don't see it (presuming that this being called "God" exists) as necessarily so that God must intervene in the world in order to be called all-powerful or good. It's a projection of our own desires onto this Being, which is the same mistake we constantly point out to the theists, when they do it in the other direction.

Even if we could say that the only way this Being could be Good/Omniscient/Omnipotent at the same time, I don't see how it follows that He must intevene in this world on that level. I'm sorry, I just don't.

I would project any desires on a "Supreme (and All-Powerful) Being" which human society would not project on me in the event that I happened to be standing in that alley when the rape took place. Not even reporting the crime is simply not ok - if I should do it, then so the fuck should any god which people believe in!

Especially if he is supposed to be the source of morality.

[LadyForCamus]

Excusing rape doesn't have to involve, nor have I ever claimed that it did involve, claiming that rape is okay.  Only that it is excusable, or that complicity in it is excusable.  

It's an objectively bad thing™ and people who are engaged in it or complicit to it are bad people™....I'm wholly against it and them...except when.. [fill in this shitty blank with nonsense of your own choosing].  Some fun examples include;

"my god is involved"
"it's part of a plan"
"it benefits us, somehow, to have it included"

I am always against it. I have made that clear. That's exactly what it means to say something is objectively immoral... it means it is always evil and NEVER excusable, for anyone, under any circumstances... no matter who, what, where, when, why, how.

Except for when God allows it to happen. Don't you see the special pleading here CL?

[LadyForCamus]

I'm flabbergasted. Are we really holding people accountable for worshiping a god we don't believe in on account of how we interpret the accounts of this nonexistent god? So we're basically telling them what they believe, is that it? You'd think we have enough experience of getting that from halfwit apologists not to embrace the very same tactics ourselves

No one is telling her what she believes. She has told us she believes/trusts that god has his reasons. My opinion is that she is a good person and knows better than to think there are any "good reasons" for allowing rape to happen, and therefore she is making an excuse for the God she worships. One he in no way deserves. I am allowed to express this opinion, and it doesn't change the fact that I like CL, and think she is a good person.