The Struggle to do Good

[Foxaèr]

I have noticed that theists tend to struggle to do good even with a belief in god. Therefore, what is the point in their theistic belief if they are still struggling to discern good from bad? After all, there are daily stories of theists doing bad things because they thought they received instructions from god.

[The Grand Nudger]

People who require moral prompting aren't expected to be competent moral agents. Children, for example.

A moral realist notes that children and other less-than-competent moral agents are only in this position because they are not yet (and may never be) in possession of the relevant body of facts, and that even if they were, they may not have a fully developed set of moral tools to assess this body of facts with. Deontology is a shortcut to get people over this hump.

Thus all of the lists of does and don'ts we cram into the mouths of gods. We're attempting to communicate the product of a body of facts. The statements made from that body of facts are true (or false) regardless of whether a pixie actually said them...and regardless of whether the pixie even exists.

[brokenreflector]

Let me make this simple for you.

True propositions are tied to reality in some way. The proposition "The universe is 13.8 billion years old" is true and it's tied to reality. We are able to measure the age of the universe.

You allege the proposition "It's evil to randomly kill people" is true. Great. But since you believe the proposition is true, then it must be tied to something in reality. What is it tied to?

---

People who require moral prompting aren't expected to be competent moral agents.

You are being "prompted," you dingus. But under atheism, this "prompting" is from a mindless and unguided natural processes. Has this thought never occurred to you?

---

Therefore, what is the point in their theistic belief if they are still struggling to discern good from bad?

You should be asking yourself where your moral values and duties come from if God doesn't exist.

Answer: a mindless and unguided natural process.

[possibletarian]

I believe the OP is convinced that masturbation is sinful. I would completely disagree with that and find no Biblical or spiritual justification for it. Objectifying women and lusting after them is though, which is probably more precisely the sin. Glad you don’t want to objectify women anymore OP, that morality has Biblical foundations and is commonly a societal morality  as well.

The commonly cited biblical prohibition on masturbation is Onan in Genesis 38.

It is one of the more spectacularly fucked up tales in the bible.

Even then, it does not condemn masturbation anyway.

Genesis 38 v9
But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

As i understand it he was withdrawing before he came, this denying a child to his brothers wife (to carry on the family line). And that was his sin.
So the lord, being the good old lord smites his ass !!

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me make this simple for you.

True propositions are tied to reality in some way. The proposition "The universe is 13.8 billion years old" is true and it's tied to reality. We are able to measure the age of the universe.

Good, you accept the existence of facts.  That's a requirement of moral realism.  It remains the case that a persons belief in the statement, and their justification for the statement, can be subjective or objective.  

Do you think that the statement "the universe is 13.8 billion years old" puprports to report a fact of the matter x, or a fact of the subject x..for example..."Bill said so"?

You allege the proposition "It's evil to randomly kill people" is true. Great. But since you believe the proposition is true, then it must be tied to something in reality. What is it tied to?

Randomness isn't a requirement.  Yes, I think that killing people is bad.  My assessment is tied to facts of the matter x, the matter x..being killing people.  Not whether or not bill told me not to kill.  

You are being "prompted," you dingus. But under atheism, this "prompting" is from a mindless and unguided natural processes. Has this thought never occurred to you?

You're arguing over who the better moral agent is.  This is a fact of the subject x.  

If you insist that my moral agency is a mindless, unguided process, then fine.  For that statement and moral realism to be true, then mindless unguided processes must be capable of assessing whether a moral statement purports to report a fact, reports those facts it purports to report, and gets those facts right.  They must be capable of computation. It's a pretty low bar. Computers exist, and do that.

Have you given any thought to which position best describes your own thoughts on the matter of human morality, and which position offers the strongest hurdle for moral realism? Your objections would strongly imply that you believe subjectivism to be the most difficult hurdle for moral realism, and I agree. I'm a moral realist, and I notice that alot of our moral statements properly refer to some fact of a subject x, rather than a fact of a matter x. Many refer to our attitudes, opinions, and nature. Many refer to a gods attitudes, opinions, and nature. This is called function subjectivism (more often functional relativity). A moral realist can hold the position that much of our moral content is in error by objective metrics, even if it accurately states opinions, attitudes, and quirks of nature. You noted yourself, earlier, that people disagree over moral contents.

[Foxaèr]

You should be asking yourself where your moral values and duties come from if God doesn't exist.

Answer: a mindless and unguided natural process.

The problem with the mundane theist is that he tends to miscalculate everything in favor of the one falsity, the one unrealistic variable referred to as god. As introspective as I am, I have tamed the wild beast within myself in order to be the best person I can to everyone else around me. However, if anyone else was to take a peek into my mind, s/he would go veritably insane. The difference between me and the average theist like you is that I understand all too well how truly lost you are.

[The Valkyrie]

Let me make this simple for you.

True propositions are tied to reality in some way. The proposition "The universe is 13.8 billion years old" is true and it's tied to reality. We are able to measure the age of the universe.

You allege the proposition "It's evil to randomly kill people" is true. Great. But since you believe the proposition is true, then it must be tied to something in reality. What is it tied to?

---

People who require moral prompting aren't expected to be competent moral agents.

You are being "prompted," you dingus. But under atheism, this "prompting" is from a mindless and unguided natural processes. Has this thought never occurred to you?

---

Therefore, what is the point in their theistic belief if they are still struggling to discern good from bad?

You should be asking yourself where your moral values and duties come from if God doesn't exist.

Answer: a mindless and unguided natural process.

The last is a serious crash and burn.

[possibletarian]

You are being "prompted," you dingus. But under atheism, this "prompting" is from a mindless and unguided natural processes. Has this thought never occurred to you?

You should be asking yourself where your moral values and duties come from if God doesn't exist.

Adding a made up god into the this problem does not solve it, it simply kicks it down the road to give you some imagined objectivity.

What's with this 'mindless' anyway unless you are claiming people don't have minds?

---

And God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception, making it objective.

Wonderful, now all we need is proof of a god, otherwise you're making up an objectivity that simply does not exist.

Can you show any moral values that exist can that could not have come from a human mind ?

[The Grand Nudger]

He's trying to bring it back on script. We were supposed to be craven subjectivists and nihilists, committed to ungodly hedonism...as he valiantly championed moral objectivity.

That didn't pan out.

Now he's going to bitch about mindless unguided this or that's.

[The Architect Of Fate]

He's trying to bring it back on script.   We were supposed to be craven subjectivists and nihilists, committed to ungodly hedonism...as he valiantly championed moral objectivity.  

That didn't pan out.

Now he's going to bitch about mindless unguided this or that's.

Well yeah the goal of theism when speaking on morality isn't to talk about morality . It's to smugly lord their delusions of moral superiority over you .