Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Rahul]

If our every thought and action was written by God, then we are not autonomous beings and have no rights.

Agreed. So if god created all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment before he even created us then what does that tell you?

He created people for the sole purpose of torturing them forever. That's the logical end conclusion that you have to admit to yourself.

Look I'm trying to switch my mindset between the screwed up mentality of a theist and someone who is realistic. It's kind of tricky. Sometimes I talk for your mindset, sometimes I talk like a rational person.

[Cato]

Agreed. So if god created all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment before he even created us then what does that tell you?

This tells me that authors are superior to God. Authors can edit before publishing. Hell, they can even acknowldedge mistakes and amend wrongs later. Soap opera writers are frequently bringing people back from the dead.

[John V]

If our every thought and action was written by God, then we are not autonomous beings and have no rights.

Agreed. So if god created all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment before he even created us then what does that tell you?

He didn't create all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment. He knew some of us would end up in heaven.

Since you agree that omniscience means we have no rights, this doesn't tell us much at all.

[Cato]

He didn't create all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment. He knew some of us would end up in heaven.

Since you agree that omniscience means we have no rights, this doesn't tell us much at all.

Does this mean that knowledge of future propositions is not included in your definition of omniscience?

[John V]

He didn't create all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment. He knew some of us would end up in heaven.

Since you agree that omniscience means we have no rights, this doesn't tell us much at all.

Does this mean that knowledge of future propositions is not included in your definition of omniscience?

No, and I don't have a clue how you got to that question from what I posted.

[Rahul]

He didn't create all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment. He knew some of us would end up in heaven.

Since you agree that omniscience means we have no rights, this doesn't tell us much at all.

"Matthew 7:13

enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."

Your own doctrine tells you that the majority of humanity is doomed to hell.

God knew that fact before he made Adam and Eve. And he still went ahead and did it.

Is your god good? How loving is he?

You know what? I don't even give a shit what you think. I was debating idiots like you back in 2007-2009. It's like beating your head against a wall. Believe whatever you want to believe.

I joined this forum because I like rational people and I wanted to talk to them occasionally. I didn't join it to argue with the tiny minority of this forum that are retarded religious people.

Go have a good life. Whatever.

I'm not even angry. I'm just tired of this stupid shit you guys say. I'm like "ehhhh, fuck it." I've lost giving a shit.

[fr0d0]

I joined this forum because I like rational people and I wanted to talk to them occasionally.

Yes, quit with the irrational nonsense and go talk rationally.

[Polaris]

If an atheist and a believer both help out, why must they try to argue who has better morals for helping out?

It takes away from a good deed (in spirit) when people try to elevate themselves for merely doing what they should be doing.

[John V]

He didn't create all of us knowing full well we would end up in hell in eternal torment. He knew some of us would end up in heaven.

Since you agree that omniscience means we have no rights, this doesn't tell us much at all.

"Matthew 7:13

enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."

Your own doctrine tells you that the majority of humanity is doomed to hell.

God knew that fact before he made Adam and Eve. And he still went ahead and did it.

Is your god good? How loving is he?

You know what? I don't even give a shit what you think. I was debating idiots like you back in 2007-2009. It's like beating your head against a wall. Believe whatever you want to believe.

I joined this forum because I like rational people and I wanted to talk to them occasionally. I didn't join it to argue with the tiny minority of this forum that are retarded religious people.

Go have a good life. Whatever.

I'm not even angry. I'm just tired of this stupid shit you guys say. I'm like "ehhhh, fuck it." I've lost giving a shit.

You made an assertion regarding omniscience. I showed a logical consequence of that position. If you don't like it, you should have refrained from the assertion in the first place.

[DeistPaladin]

You haven’t established that these are anomalous. Your point is a bare assertion. You’ve done nothing to support it, and I’ve shown counter-examples.

My point is not a bare assertion. It's based on my reading of the Bible and my example of the 10Cs. Your "counter-example" isn't. Amish culture is very strict about conformity of their followers and they strictly outlaw the "evils" of blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. It also promotes false "virtures", in their case eschewing modern culture. Hence, the Amish example actually proves my point.

No, I missed the point where you showed that such features are inferior.

A moral system that exalts phony "virtues" or demonizes harmless activities or traits as "sins" (i.e. religious-based morality) is inferior to one that actually focuses on how we treat our fellow sentient beings (i.e. secular morality).

If this point is lost on you, I can't explain it any clearer.

Must an action have a victim to be immoral? For instance, public nudity causes no intrinsic harm to others, yet most societies consider it immoral.

Immoral or illegal?

You muddy up the waters again but I'll indulge you. Nudity is not "evil" per-se. Certainly not the same way that we might say "slavery is evil" or "rape is evil". This issue you bring up is more about the conflict of personal expression/liberty vs. the needs of a community to function without disruption. Lawyers, lawmakers and justices wrangle about with this issue and many like it. Other issues like it might be should Muslims be allowed to broadcast their "call to prayer"? Should the Phelps family be allowed to picket a funeral? These are issues of legality but not necessarily morality, weighing the rights of the individual vs. the needs of the community.

The implication was clearly that religion offers no other explanation than god wills it.

Using logic or natural reasoning in a moral argument is secular, even when such arguments are copied into Holy Books. If a secularist could just as easily say it, it's secular. If "God" isn't a necessary or helpful part to the argument, it's secular.

A king can be a judge and not be bound by an external moral code.

I disagree.

You do the same thing as those you criticize, but don’t criticize yourself.

Such as?

Your opinion is again noted. You don’t seem to have much beside opinion and bare assertion.

As I've already explained, punishment is supposed to serve a purpose to discourage bad behavior. This is what distinguishes disciplining a child from child abuse.

The eternal torture of Hell can't either discourage bad behavior, since it isn't revealed to exist until after we die, nor can it rehabilitate, since there is no parole from Hell. And since the only criteria for going to Hell is (1) existing and (2) not converting to the correct religion, it's not about punishment anyway but torture for critical thinking.

Now, if you still want to call this "just my opinion", then basic decency is lost on you and I'm not even sure why I should bother to debate morality with someone so amoral.

It’s clearly wrong. In this analogy, the spouse isn’t battered, and the battered party isn’t a spouse.

Battered wife: "My husband really loves me. When he beats me, it's because of what I did or failed to do. I really deserve it. I really don't deserve to be loved because I'm so worthless."

Christian: "Our god loves us. When he sends people to be tortured in Hell for all eternity, it's because we deserve it. We really don't deserve God's love because we are such worthless sinners."

Have I spelled it out clearly enough now?

I’m not letting it go. Here’s a link to the article I mentioned...

"Let that go" means "I accept what you've said as true". You could show me many examples of slavery, rape and genocide, and I would share your disgust (based on my secular morals, which is the point) and find it irrelevant to our discussion.

To repeat once again...

My point was never that secular morals have created a perfect paradise where no one ever commits crimes anymore and no one ever wrongs another anymore. Yes, crimes still do happen. Yes, we're not perfect. Yes, bad people still do bad things. Completely beside the point.

My point is that secular morals have evolved to where we say that slavery, rape and genocide are bad. Our own country no longer defends the institution of slavery on a political level like factions of it did 150 some-odd years ago. We've stopped evaluating whether or not these practices are morally defensible. We're now at the stage of struggling to stamp them out.

Are you starting to understand?

Not much of a struggle in Germany.

Hopefully that will change soon. Regardless, secular morality is not responsible since secular morality has not said, "hey, rape and slavery, good stuff". (Like the Bible does).

Again, god is judge. Capital punishment is not murder.

Capital punishment just for existing and not converting to the right religion is murder.

rape at the orders of your god

Where?

Will provide an extensive list when I get home...

Regulation is a step in the right direction. Jesus said plainly that the law contained compromise due to the hardness of Israel’s heart.

Regulation = Tacit approval of the practice.

Else, why regulate when you can outlaw.

God could outlaw slavery with a single booming voice from above. He has no excuse for not doing it.

Jesus did nothing to outlaw slavery. In fact, here's a great video on all the missed opportunities that Jesus had as supposedly God to instill some really advanced morals. This is another indication that Jesus was simply relating the morals of the time and thus not demonstrating any divine insight.

As you just said “secular” in the OP, for now, yes, you are responsible for that.

Well, I reject that assertion and call "Reducto Ad Absurdum"

I’m talking about your charge that religion could lead to the killing of someone in order to prevent their corrupting others, and noting that secular morality can do the same thing.

But my charge is about an inherent nature of the faith-based scheme of salvation, the duality of a god and a devil and how dangerous these beliefs are. That there are other dangerous beliefs does nothing to justify yours.

Where did I attack the person?

When you say, "oh, he's not an expert, so I'm not listening to his argument", that's a classic ad hominem.