Which Comes First?

[theVOID]

You don't believe morality or good and evil exist, but you take pride in labeling yourself a "good person".

I never said I took pride. And I don't believe they exist objectively. But I do - obviously - believe they exist subjectively.

You concede that your explanation of morality is meaningless (in reality, to other people, etc).

. No, not to other people. Our own opinions and views effect each other . I think I'm a good person, and so do others. Some people like me more than others. This is all a subjective matter.

You're "good" (by your own standards!) to impress yourself and that's noble?

When did I say this was about impressing myself? Yes by my own standards, and by the standards of those who also believe I am. Where is your evidence for objective morality? This is all a subjective matter as far as I'm concerned. Got any reason for me to believe it isn't?

This is self-absorption, self-righteous, self-centered...not good, noble, or worthy.

In your own subjective opinion. Subjective morality once again.

Now I'd just like to know where you think I gave a sense of self-absorption, self-righteousness and self-centredness in my post.

1. I didn't say I was proud. On the contrary I said I didn't need satisfaction in order to be good. I also said that I thought I was good, I don't claim to now that I am. That's humility not pride, I would think?

2. What do you mean by 'self absorption?' since morality is subjective in my view, because there's no evidence that it's objective - then how can I have or not have any moral beliefs other than in my own subjective way?

3. Self-righteousness? Well, as I said: I'm not claming to know what is or isn't moral or immoral here. On the contrary, I believe it is subjective. You on the other hand believe you know the objective morals, if one of is self-righteous then, it is you. For you are the one claiming to know something that you cannot, and that you have no evidence of whatsoever it seems, insofar as I can tell.

4. Self centreness? When did I speak of morality being about being self-centered? On the contrary, I think morality is about caring for others as well as yourself, and you don't need an imaginary guy in the sky in order to care. Show me otherwise.

5. I believe it is more noble to be good because you're good, and to care because you care, rather than simply being so because you're God made you that way. Because you can care on your own without needing to be protected by the magic guy in the sky.

And is it not a more ignoble reason to be good and to care, if you only do so because your God asks of it? And you can't be good, can't be moral, without him, perhaps?

You're insane.

That is your own subjective opinion. Along with all your morals - and everyone else's, myself included - which you have failed to evidence as being somehow objective as you claim them to be.

And I can't say I'm surprised that you bow down to me when you believe I'm insane. Because you worship God and he's an incredibly insane idea. But once a delusion is so popular, it's almost as if there's no stopping it - for some people... - eh?

EvF

You're really dedicated to repetition and hot air. Summary response:
Morality, really, is tied to a type (or types) of growth within humans (e.g. motivational; if I treat people morally I boost their spirits). There is a real way to encourage this growth, even though humans are complex (some confused) and a true way may seem difficult to imagine (with so many possible circumstances).

It's absurd to think that there isn't a real way to treat yourself and people - even if some people are different or even corrupted. To say morality is subjective is to say that it is meaningless. It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better (vanilla or chocolate). That doesn't make sense and it disallows you from calling the murderer wrong, but most importantly it disallows other people from telling you that you're wrong.

Morality IS subjective, this is evidenced entirely by the fact of slavery - something that was once considered morally acceptable (even in the Bible) is now considered extremely immoral, perhaps even evil. This demonstrates that our morals can, and have, changed over time, thus, not objective.

"It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better"

Oh... My... God...

Let me put this REALLY simple for you... so you can understand..

We, mankind, are social animals and as such we need each other to survive. It is obvious, and evident, that murder does not make for an efficient society, so in turn we (and all other social animals) evolved an innate sense of social efficiency to allow us to most effectively work together and thus, to survive.

Our evolved social morality is not however, absolute, and in order to protect ourselves from divergence in what is the moral standard accepted by consensus, we form Law and Order to protect the society and it's moral standards as a whole from the moral standards of the few, leading us to what is the pinnacle of society, democracy. If morals were absolute then no system of governance would ever be required as the innate morals we all posses would never conflict with an opposing moral standard (because no such standard would exist)

While we are on the subject of Morality and God, i would like to bring to everyone's attention the Piranha and the fact that they are morally superior to us... This most bloodthirsty, savage of creature has NEVER been seen to harm one of it's own kind, something that sadly cannot be said of our own species.

I am curious, Christians, as to how you reconcile the fact of the Piranha's moral superiority with the idea of Humans being created in God's image under his absolute moral standard?