Atheists come up with ideal god

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:


As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.

My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).

Sorry I thought it would make for good discussion so I posted another thread.
Thanks for replying!

I think all humans are moral people because it says in the bible that the law is written on our hearts. That's why it doesn't take a genius to realize child molestation is wrong. however, I cant understand how you can argue for an objective moral truth like genocide is wrong if you deny a existential law. It seems you assume there is moral truths. Can you elaborate more on this?

Well, uh, that's nice that the Bible says that... but what law written on our hearts? No way.

Our ideas about "what is moral" change all the time. There is no basis for objective morality.  We can study the concept in terms of "we would like to maximize the good of as many as possible while minimizing harm", but really most of our moral concepts come down to our capacity for extending empathy beyond our immediate kin, to the level of the tribe, a trait which evolved in most intelligent, social species, like dolphins and chimpanzees, for instance. In the case of humans, the Agricultural Revolution expanded the size of our "tribe group" by several thousandfold, requiring a major stretching of our ability to extend our empathy to those not very much like us.

For most of our history we have been really, really bad at it. But we're getting better, especially in the post-Enlightenment societies that recognize the concepts of basic human rights.

If the law of morality was "written on our hearts", we would not have taken until the 19th century to realize that owning other human beings is Not Okay™, that marrying 13 year olds is Not Okay™, that rape is a personal crime against the woman and not a property crime against her male owner, that aggressive/genocidal wars of conquest are not cool, and that women are actually people. We still have a long way to go, but, in the words of Reverend Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

We're getting better, two steps forward for each step back, and I think once we let go of each chain of the rigidity of religious dogma, as we began to do in the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, we will advance even more.

You say that without some high authority telling us The One Right Way to Live™, we cannot determine morality for ourselves. I say that it is that very concept that has held us back.