Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Ryantology]

Innocent babies: I've been through this before this week. God, having the ability to judge future action, can judge you on what you will do.

And a Christian finally reveals that free will is a lie. Sin is the result of exercising will that goes against God. No infant has the capacity to do that. If free will is the vehicle by which we are capable of sin, then no sin is certain to happen in the future. If God can judge someone ahead of time, then there is no free will, because those babies were predestined to be what they were.

If every Amalekite was slaughtered under that pretext, that every single one of them would, in their lifetimes, be guilty of a sin that demanded death (even though they hadn't committed it yet), everybody in the world should have suffered the same fate. It is not justice if it is not consistent. It's just the weakest possible justification for the murderous whims of a dictator.

[fr0d0]

So Ryan. God knows the future so you, who do not, don't have free will? Please explain to me how to you, your choice is limited. Please explain to me how you are not a free agent to act as your will dictates.

Once more with the unsupported claims. Wow I had no idea the extent of the hypocrisy of you guys.

[Esquilax]

That's not an answer. Don't fly off on one until you've succeeded In proving a point. So far we have bare assertion to hang me with.

Well, you would know all about bare assertions, wouldn't you?

But of course if you make a big enough smoke screen you inadequacy might be obscured. Your deliberate misreading of the text might be forgotten.

My stating that ending the life of a being is not justice in any sense is a smoke screen? Or is it just basic moral sense?

Guess what? I still need evidence. Don't be shy.

You know what? So do I: what's your evidence that every Amelekite was going to turn out evil? And don't go saying that god wouldn't have had them killed if they weren't, that's circular reasoning, and a part of my brain might explode if you add more of that on top of what you've already done.

This is the problem with your quality of argumentation here; you won't accept any argument given by anyone else without evidence that aligns with your own narrow minded views, but you yourself seem quite happy to make claims like the one above with no evidence at all.

Innocent babies: I've been through this before this week. God, having the ability to judge future action, can judge you on what you will do.

So when you said that god doesn't tamper in free will earlier today, you were lying? Because killing someone for their future actions, before they are able to commit the crimes for which they are being punished, is definitely tampering in free will.

No one can judge: precisely the point. What we have is a definite statement or two. All of those statements are consistent in reporting a just God exercising justice.

What is just about punishing someone for a crime they haven't committed? Why did god not kill me in my infancy, knowing of my atheism ahead of time? Why has he suddenly stopped killing those who do evil now? Why isn't everyone alive today a good christian, since god apparently has no problems with mass executions of those who will commit acts he finds evil in future?

Did he suddenly decide to start caring about free will?

This is what we have to deal with.
If you want to disprove the statements, you have you show how those statements are incorrect. That burden is yours to shoulder.

Well, they're certainly inconsistent with other claims you've made about god recently, so you're wrong on at least one of them, though the safe bet is that you're wrong on all of them, and just in too deep to pull out now and admit it.

If you make that claim without substantiating it, we can all happily move on and disregard your claim.

Oh cool: I'll do the same with your claims about the Amelekites and about god being just, then, given that you've provided no evidence for either of those.

Likewise, If I we're to make a claim that the statements could be proven, I would expect you to demand that my claim be backed up. Do you see me making any claims? No.

Yes. You claim that god's will is just, and that the Amelekites must all have been hellspawn in potentia, in order to defend your irrational beliefs. Neither of those have been given any supporting justifications from you; where's your evidence for them?

So here we are again, waiting for these inspired claims to be substantiated. Meanwhile, we must assume their falsity.

Still arguing that killing is morally good. How interesting...

Your point here is that the text must be untrue. Yet you cannot prove that statement. So why make it? Would you be happy that I make equally wild claims? I would fully expect you to correct me. Hopefully I would have the humility to retract.

No, the point is that the text depicts the genocidal massacre of an entire class of people, an act that every moral instinct in all of us shows to be immoral. You are claiming that this act- which you yourself would find immoral outside of a biblical context- is a-okay because god ordered it, and to justify this contradiction you went on to claim that the people being killed must have been going to do something wrong in future, with the eventual end of that argument being that if they weren't, god wouldn't be slaughtering them.

In making this argument, you have made two very clear claims: one is that god's rulings are necessarily always just, something you have not demonstrated in the slightest, and I can't fathom a way in which you could. The other claim is that the Amelekites must necessarily have been preparing to do something evil in the eyes of god; another claim you will find quite impossible to prove. Despite this, you had no compunction about making either of them, asserting them by fiat in the same breath you used to demand evidence from us that killing is wrong.

Are you, like, drunk or something?

So Ryan. God knows the future so you, who do not, don't have free will? Please explain to me how to you, your choice is limited. Please explain to me how you are not a free agent to act as your will dictates.

If you're killed in infancy before you've had an opportunity to exercise your free will in order to commit the acts that you're being killed for, can you be said to have had free will at all? You were killed for an act you weren't even conscious enough to consider making... whatever it was that act turned out to be!

[John V]

And a Christian finally reveals that free will is a lie. Sin is the result of exercising will that goes against God. No infant has the capacity to do that. If free will is the vehicle by which we are capable of sin, then no sin is certain to happen in the future. If God can judge someone ahead of time, then there is no free will, because those babies were predestined to be what they were.

If there's no free will, then we're not autonomous agents with rights to any particular treatment.

If every Amalekite was slaughtered under that pretext, that every single one of them would, in their lifetimes, be guilty of a sin that demanded death (even though they hadn't committed it yet), everybody in the world should have suffered the same fate.

Like in the flood? Biblically, yes, everyone deserves that fate, but god is longsuffering, allowing the world to continue for his own purposes.

It is not justice if it is not consistent.

Mercy need not be consistent. Don't conflate it with justice.

---

Well, you would know all about bare assertions, wouldn't you?

Must...resist...bare...insertion...joke...

---

Removing all the red herring evasion...

Can you support your claim that secular morality focuses like a laser on what's really important, and justify the added complexity that it brings to some issues? If not, you lose.

Well?

[Esquilax]

Must...resist...bare...insertion...joke...

Give in to it...

[fr0d0]

That's not an answer. Don't fly off on one until you've succeeded In proving a point. So far we have bare assertion to hang me with.

Well, you would know all about bare assertions, wouldn't you?

But of course if you make a big enough smoke screen you inadequacy might be obscured. Your deliberate misreading of the text might be forgotten.

My stating that ending the life of a being is not justice in any sense is a smoke screen? Or is it just basic moral sense?

Guess what? I still need evidence. Don't be shy.

You know what? So do I: what's your evidence that every Amelekite was going to turn out evil?

What bare assertion have I made Esq? You're clutching at straws now. I only assert what is provable. I haven't asserted anything about the text quoted that supposedly proves the evil nature of God. I am challenging your empty claims of the opposite.

Break free from this trap and admit that you don't know. That's a respectable position.

---

You claim that the ending of a life is immoral. Please support that statement. I believe that human judges cannot decide to end life in justice because they simply lack knowledge. Considering a knowledgeable judge, as God is defined, I believe ending life justly is completely possible.

---

Innocent babies: I've been through this before this week. God, having the ability to judge future action, can judge you on what you will do.

So when you said that god doesn't tamper in free will earlier today, you were lying? Because killing someone for their future actions, before they are able to commit the crimes for which they are being punished, is definitely tampering in free will.

I didn't say that God doesn't tamper with free will. God knows everything you do through your life. Before you were born, all if your life is known. Does that affect your freedom as a being subject to linear time? Not from your perspective, no. You are completely oblivious of anything other than your own reality.
God manages reality, so God will make changes. He sees something that counters his purpose and corrects it. He sees a life that has chosen evil and effects it's surroundings so badly the only just thing to do is prune out the bad wood. Gardeners see this as nurturing, yet you see it as evil.

[DeistPaladin]

Well?

Well what? I'm waiting on you.

Some friendly advice: just bite the bullet and say it's a matter of faith to you that all this sectarian crap is an important part of morality. You'll come out looking a lot better for your honesty. All this red herring evasion is getting embarrassing to watch.

[John V]

Well?

Well what? I'm waiting on you.

Some friendly advice: just bite the bullet and say it's a matter of faith to you that all this sectarian crap is an important part of morality. You'll come out looking a lot better for your honesty. All this red herring evasion is getting embarrassing to watch.

Please. Let's review. Your argument is:

1. There is a set of moral principles which are really important
2. The scope of religious morality exceeds that which is really important
3. The scope of secular morality is limited to that which is really important
4. Therefore, secular morality is superior to religious morality

My arguments:
A. We can't evaluate 1 until you define what's really important
B. We can't technically evaluate 2 until you define what's really important
C. We can't evaluate 3 until you define what's really important and define the scope of secular morality
D. The logic of the conclusion hasn't been supported

Regarding A, to support that a certain set of moral principles constitutes what's really important, you'll need to show that those principles are found in all or the vast majority of cultures. You can probably do that, or at least propose a set to which I would agree. However, you don't want to do that because you know the set will not include all secular moral principles, and so will refute your point 3.

Regarding B, I've mostly been treating it as a given and attacking other points of your argument.

Regarding C, you've refused to clearly define the scope of secular morality because you know it will include principles that aren't really important, assuming that you ever define and support really important. You claim religious morality is inferior because it includes virtues and sins which aren't really important. So does secular morality. I've mostly held off on examples because you should provide definitions of terms first.

I haven't said much regarding D because you won't be able to support A through C. However, it's not a given that simplicity is superior.

[DeistPaladin]

Please. Let's review. Your argument is:

1. All your red herring evasion does you no good because religious-based morality has all the same problems.
2. Religious-based morality, in addition to all the conundrums with secular morality, dumps a load of worthless "virtues" and harmless "sins" on top.
3. You need to justify #2 or else admit that religious-based morality complicates the issue needlessly and is therefore inferior.

However, it's not a given that simplicity is superior.

Yeah, actually it is, especially when the added complexity is needless and not helpful.

[John V]

1. All your red herring evasion does you no good because religious-based morality has all the same problems.

We don't know that until you define what's really important and the scope of secular morality. It could be that secular morality has issues not found in some religious moralities. This seems to be why you're afraid to consider animal rights.

2. Religious-based morality, in addition to all the conundrums with secular morality, dumps a load of worthless "virtues" and harmless "sins" on top.

Secular morality has worthless virtues and harmless sins of its own. I've mentioned public nudity several times. I'm looking out my window at a flag. There are rules regarding its treatment, some codified, some not, which are worthless/harmless. We have a number of secular holidays. None of these seem to be really important to me, although I'm still waiting for your definition.

3. You need to justify #2 or else admit that religious-based morality complicates the issue needlessly and is therefore inferior.

As shown, secular morality likely has extraneous issues of its own. The problem is that you're afraid to offer definitions.

Yeah, actually it is, especially when the added complexity is needless and not helpful.

Needless and not helpful does not necessarily imply a hindrance. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.