What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Aoi Magi]

To put it simply:
- Good is that which is not bad.

I think there is a "neutral" phase somewhere in between those

[robvalue]

Yeah, I agree Not being hit with a stick is neutral. Not being hit with a stick and then also being given pizza is good.

That is one of the lousy attempts to explain away evil: if good exists, evil must exist because it is the absence of good.

[Randy Carson]

I just want to make a general statement about that since it keeps being brought up so much:

Remember,  I am a Christian, not a Jew.

I cannot speak for Judaism, but Christianity is defined by the New Testament - the Gospels, the teachings of Christ. The OT was not perfect, and neither were the people's view of God back then. That is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is *really* like and to set the record straight on some things. While the OT talks about an eye for an eye, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While the OT justified stoning or killing in some instances, Jesus stopped a whole crowd of people from stoning a woman.

I am not saying any of this to "convert" anyone. I know none of you believe in any of it. I'm just saying it to clear up some misconceptions you may have about my beliefs and my religion. If anything, so that you can be better equipped to debunk Catholicism if you so feel the need to do so.  ;-)

This is a silly objection.  The god of the OT and the god of the NT are the same god.  Either morality changed over time -- indicating that it is malleable -- or your god has acted immorally.  Your personal religion is irrelevant, because you worship the god of the Bible.  All the Bible. So far as I know, the Catholic Church includes the OT in its holy text. Saying that you don't is probably not something you'd say to your priest, I'm betting.

Parkers-

You are absolutely correct. God is the same regardless of which testament we are discussing. Therefore, claiming that he is no is right out.

It is also true that God does not act immorally - it is more likely that we do not understand God's actions and therefore, we judge it to be immoral by our standards and according to our understanding.

I also reject the idea that morality has changed - at one level anyway. Murder was wrong for Cain and it is wrong for me. No change.

Therefore, ISTM that we have to examine WHY God might have instructed the Israelites to take certain actions at one point in OT history, only to command something different later in the NT.

But in order to discuss that intelligently, we have to agree on some examples of that behavior. To what are you referring when you say that God acted immorally in the past?

[pocaracas]

To put it simply:
- Good is that which is not bad.

I think there is a "neutral" phase somewhere in between those

Well, I did say I was putting it simply...
And neutral can be considered good, by some standards...

[Randy Carson]

Some atheists who believe that objective moral right and wrong really do exist, a position also called moral realism, say they simply know that these moral truths exist, and that’s good enough for them.

Is that an opinion you've found expressed by anyone on this forum?  Because atheism is not a philosophy, and I really could care less what "some atheists" think unless it's a good thought.

Many atheists see to think moral realism is obvious, and easy to prove. I disagree.

Why bother to attack what isn't being argued?  Because it's easier than what's actually being said here and now?  I see no point in collectively discussing opinions not raised in the thread.  If you are a moral relativist fine.  Otherwise, why waste time shutting down an opinion not even raised.  Talk with the atheists you are talking to, not some atheists you find elsewhere.

Jenny-

Two reasons come to mind.

First, I think there is more moral realism at work in the minds of some here than might be apparent at first glance.

Second, I want to point out that atheists are fond of saying that as science discovers more of the natural reasons behind the things that we observe, there is less and less for the Gotg to do.

Now, as I read the posts of the various members of this forum, it seems that y'all can pretty much believe in anything you want about God as long as you don't actually believe IN God.

However, when I read more astute atheists like Tim O'Neill and Luke Muehlhauser debunking the Jesus' Mythers' ignorance of history and the logical fallacies that are inherent in the fuzzy moral thinking of many atheists, respectively, I begin to note that there is less and less for unthinking atheists to believe.

[ignoramus]

Catholic_Lady. You are going to work early and you're up at 3:00am!
You must love discussing this stuff with us! hehe. We're happy if you're happy.

fight the good fight!

Why I rarely bother discussing these topics (with anyone - (I'm in it for the dirty jokes!)) is that if you were born in eg: middle east, china, Eastern Europe, Africa etc, all your "absolutes" would be different. This categorically proves (to me) that the whole notion of "which god" and "objective morality" is subjective and relative.
So basically your most personal beliefs are a direct result of the geo political climate you happen to be born in.

Catch tomorrow.

[Aoi Magi]

---

Is that an opinion you've found expressed by anyone on this forum?  Because atheism is not a philosophy, and I really could care less what "some atheists" think unless it's a good thought.


Why bother to attack what isn't being argued?  Because it's easier than what's actually being said here and now?  I see no point in collectively discussing opinions not raised in the thread.  If you are a moral relativist fine.  Otherwise, why waste time shutting down an opinion not even raised.  Talk with the atheists you are talking to, not some atheists you find elsewhere.

Jenny-

---

Two reasons come to mind.

First, I think there is more moral realism at work in the minds of some here than might be apparent at first glance.

Second, I want to point out that atheists are fond of saying that as science discovers more of the natural reasons behind the things that we observe, there is less and less for the Gotg to do.

Now, as I read the posts of the various members of this forum, it seems that y'all can pretty much believe in anything you want about God as long as you don't actually believe IN God.

However, when I read more astute atheists like Tim O'Neill and Luke Muehlhauser debunking the Jesus' Mythers' ignorance of history and the logical fallacies that are inherent in the fuzzy moral thinking of many atheists, respectively, I begin to note that there is less and less for unthinking atheists to believe.

1) What is "Gotg"?
2) Why are you "thinking" and discussing unrelated random things in this thread?

[Longhorn]

@Aoi

Gotg = god of the gaps

As to the second question....'god only knows'....-_-

[robvalue]

So here it is:

To be able to tell the difference between the evil, menacing maniac "bad" God and the nice fuzzy helpful "good" Jesus, you must already be aware of what "good" is. Otherwise, what standard are you using? It would be all the same to you if you had no idea.

I'll stop grilling you now You've done well answering all these questions! Don't feel you have to address all my stupid points. They're just something to think about while hitting a punching bag or something.

[Cato]

The existence of objective morals has never been demonstrated. There is also no evidence for any god, let alone God. Pointing the unsubstantiated claims of God and 'objective morals' at one another in an effort to give either some validity is dubious.