My views on objective morality

[pocaracas]

I think if God would prevent rape, he should prevent murder. If he prevents murder, he should prevent wars. If he prevents wars, he would force everyone to accept his representative on earth.  

Now there's a curious sequence... with an interesting ending.
"his representative on earth"... don't you ever think why such a representative is required?

Try to look at it from the top down... and bottom up.
top down: god is there, but doesn't want to get his hands dirty (?), so he appoints a few sporadic "representatives".

bottom up: man is here, some men think they're in contact with a supreme being, and self-appoint as representatives of that being.


Both lead to things as we see them... but one need not be like that. I think the top-down view could do without a representative and maybe lead to a much better world... at least, one without divergence in the divine message - all humanity could be in proper sync, as the message would stem directly from god, no fallible representatives.... no false representatives... Under this scenario, the belief I talked about in another post would not be a requirement... people would have a justified belief, or knowledge, of this god entity and live with that. But that's not what we observe happening, in this world, is it, mystic?

[LadyForCamus]

Well, catching up on all the comments, looks like I'm still being accused of "excusing the complicity of rape", or whatever the new way of wording it is. So I'm going to leave this thread. Feeling extremely sour about the whole forum in general right now and the people in it. I only hold people to the same standards as myselfand I would NEVER mind fuck anyone the way I'm being mind fucked here in regards to my position on rape. There are a lot of things I would never do/say to another person that get said to me quite often here, and I brush it off and make excuses for people all the time, but this in particular crosses a line for me. Thank you to the several people who defended me. To everyone else here who is continuing to tell me I think rape is anything other than what I actually said it is (objectively immoral, inherently evil) frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

::bold mine:: Right. You just don't hold God to those same standards. Makes sense to me!

[kimsland]

I only hold people to the same standards as myself

I cannot see the issue where you are debating the philosophy of objective morality, when this morality comes through punishments of sin as stated in the bible from your mythical god.

Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid.
God has come to test you, so that the fear of
God will be with you to keep you from sinning."

If your mythical god told you to rape an innocent victim, as much as murder is a religious sin, so is rape EXCEPT when commanded by your mythical god! Just as mythical god sacrificed his own son, sin has always been for the objective morality of mythical god. What can you say against a command by your own mythical god? Will you show weakness of your faith and stop because you have been argued against by 'human morals' that are subjective? I would say no. Your answer would be > TO RAPE, as demanded by your authority.

I say to you that your moral standards are not as mine. I have no sin nor do I feel it even exists. No man or woman was born evil or should be labelled sinners that deserve external punishment, NOR is any child born evil irrespective of their actions.

My morals are provided from a HIGHER source than your mythical god. They are humanitarian and well thought out by an entire society. Even if I was pushed to break my own morals and society's laws, I would know it is wrong and make a choice not to continue. My standards are not held to an authority that YOU yourself agree gives me free will to go against; obviously UNLESS the demand is put onto you, where your morals are thrown out the window.

My views on objective morality > Ridiculous and laughable. Unless of course anything I've mentioned is against your beliefs. and you wish to comment?

How can you honestly say you are against rape when your own mythical god commands murder? (and rape to the Israelites). That's not morals that's crazy talk. No wonder you don't want to have anything to do with other well thought out views, I don't want anything to do with yours!
[url=http://atheistforums.org/thread-41776.html][/url]

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Well, catching up on all the comments, looks like I'm still being accused of "excusing the complicity of rape", or whatever the new way of wording it is. So I'm going to leave this thread. Feeling extremely sour about the whole forum in general right now and the people in it. I only hold people to the same standards as myself, and I would NEVER mind fuck anyone the way I'm being mind fucked here in regards to my position on rape. There are a lot of things I would never do/say to another person that get said to me quite often here, and I brush it off and make excuses for people all the time, but this in particular crosses a line for me. Thank you to the several people who defended me. To everyone else here who is continuing to tell me I think rape is anything other than what I actually said it is (objectively immoral, inherently evil) frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

I'm very sorry you feel that way, CL, but as I see it you have been mind-fucked since you were a little child with ideas which you would surely have rejected, for very good reasons and most probably correctly had you first heard them as an adult! So was I, btw, and finding my freedom from those oppressive ideas was a painful process, but still well worth it.

When an idea doesn't make good sense, and fails the logic litmus test for good sense, then it not only doesn't make good sense in reality, but it can lead to unintended evil. I speak only for myself, but I believe this is what we've all been trying to point out to you. There's simply no good sense in looking to the god which you believe in as a moral standard, and if you do then you endorse what he does / allows from the position of "the all-powerful and omnipresent".

[LadyForCamus]

Because God is good, and God allows it.  If it is objectively evil, then a God which allows it is evil.  Therefore, it is NECESSARILY TRUE that either: 1) God is not good; or 2) rape is not objectively evil.

/thread

I'm going to call it a night. But, Catholic Lady, I'd like to invite you to stay here in your own thread and work this out with us because you've made it such a big deal. It would be a pity to lose a member such as yourself over misunderstandings.
Maybe the others are mistaken. Obviously you mean a lot to a lot of members here personally, and that is why this is so difficult a subject to talk to you about--but, you brought it up. Maybe there's some straw man argumentation going on from other members of this forum, or maybe you just don't understand what it is you are arguing and the ramifications of such beliefs. Or maybe more! Lots of us here have intensely talked this very scenario out with other theists, and if it seems harsh to you; maybe it just is! Maybe the bible says what you don't believe in, but it does say it and you do seem to have come here as a "representative" of Catholicism.

You're the one with the name "Catholic lady" so it is assumed you follow Catholic doctrine. And Catholic doctrine is what those who are disagreeing with you, are addressing. Additionally you've re-inforced your opinions in my mind, by referring back to your post #618 which implicitly states that you condone gods will, whatever it may be, based upon the free will argument. Please do note that neglect is a form of abuse. Neglecting to stop your dogs from fighting and tearing each others' ears off, for instance, is immoral and illegal where you live, for instance.

Perhaps you could start over with what it is, exactly, that you believe?

Personally I like pertinent discussions and this line of thought and think it's a healthy discussion for you to have. No one (and I will personally see to this as a moderator) will put words into your mouth as to what you believe. From what I've seen, people have been reacting to the fact that you can't believe in god or Catholic doctrine and not believe X Y Z. But, maybe you don't believe in those things. It's a slippery slope that the Catholic Church (and it's many victims) have had to come to terms with. What they believe and what they profess to believe in, can sometimes be two very separate things! 

You may not realize what it is you are saying to us fully, and so I' wont fault you for it (I don't know you I'm just an outsider looking in), but  I think everyone here would like a chance to re-evaluate what it is, exactly, that you believe and try to show you how we reconcile what you believe with what we've been arguing and perhaps come to an understanding that befits you? 
Lady Camu, for instance, has done her best as far as I can see to be respectful and understanding and I don't believe you understand her, actually.  

Secondarily I know it can be quite a shock to find out the reality of god, the implications of his involvement (or lack thereof), and the ramifications of re-evaluating your own beliefs. So, take some time, however long you want, and please do return.

THANK YOU, Luckie. Indeed, I am in no way attempting to attack CL's character. The opposite, in fact. And if all I cared about was just brow beating someone for the fun of it, I would have gotten bored pages ago. I don't understand the mentality behind special pleading. I don't understand how an otherwise intelligent, reasonable person can be cognizant of the fact that they hold a logically contradictory belief, and still defend the belief.

Let me try to make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR one last time:

I do not think that CL would ever actually condone any god's complacency or complicity regarding the rape (and all human suffering) he hypothetically allows in this world. But, I DO think she clings to a special plead; a cognitive dissonance that no matter how you slice it, will inevitably lead to people misinterpreting her position as such.

This bothers me, because I'm pretty sure CL is a kind and empathetic human being, and she refuses to see (in my opinion) how her illogical position has the potential to reflect erroneously on her character. I know that some members here are feeling territorial. I understand this, and I understand why. CL has earned it, and I'm not disputing that. But the fact remains that she is a theist who posted a thread to DEFEND god's objective morality on an atheist forum, and up until now I haven't seen anyone tiptoeing around anybody else's logical contradictions. In fact, I'd say because we respect and care for CL, all the more reason to continue working through the discussion. We are doing her a disservice by rubbing her back and saying, 'don't listen to those meanies, if you think God has his special reasons then maybe he does.' Isn't almost every philosophical debate on this website an opportunity; a challenge for all of us to consider new ideas and increase our self-awareness? Don't we owe each other intellectual honesty?

@CL, I know you're upset with me, and upset in general. Maybe all of this is hitting a nerve...for a reason. Maybe that's a good thing. Or maybe you won't care to participate in conversations with me again after this. Either way, know I will never be too tired or frustrated to continue working through something with you, and that offer is always on the table no matter how angry at me you are.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, catching up on all the comments, looks like I'm still being accused of "excusing the complicity of rape", or whatever the new way of wording it is. So I'm going to leave this thread. Feeling extremely sour about the whole forum in general right now and the people in it. I only hold people to the same standards as myself, and I would NEVER mind fuck anyone the way I'm being mind fucked here in regards to my position on rape. There are a lot of things I would never do/say to another person that get said to me quite often here, and I brush it off and make excuses for people all the time, but this in particular crosses a line for me. Thank you to the several people who defended me. To everyone else here who is continuing to tell me I think rape is anything other than what I actually said it is (objectively immoral, inherently evil) frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

I hope you check in again. I was wondering what you would think of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

[Mister Agenda]

No. He's saying I'm excusing rape. Which I am not. So no, not "exactly this" at all.

Your cousin, who you think is good, sees a child rape happening.  Your cousin, being a big libertarian, allows the rape continue.  People say, "Your cousin allows child rape, so he's bad."  You say, "No, my cousin just believes in free will.  Don't blame him."

I've seen profound misunderstandings of libertarianism before, but this one takes the cake.

[Mister Agenda]

You're right, Lady.

Wow, well thanks for clarifying.  Glad I wasted my time.

Good on you for cyber-bullying her enough to get her to agree with anything you say rather than waste her time trying to defend herself. You're a credit to something, I'm sure.

[LadyForCamus]

Wow, well thanks for clarifying.  Glad I wasted my time.

Good on you for cyber-bullying her enough to get her to agree with anything you say rather than waste her time trying to defend herself. You're a credit to something, I'm sure.

Why don't you read the entire thread before passing judgement Mister.

[LadyForCamus]

What would I possibly gain from bullying someone into agreeing with me? Cyber, or otherwise.