Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[DeistPaladin]

Secular morality is transient. it's based upon the prominent view of society at the time. So much breath is wasted on these forums dispatching the secular morals of biblical record it makes you wonder how anyone could express such duality without flinching.

As if Yahweh's morality wasn't transient.

What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of Christians like John V, Frodo, Ronedee and others. They first try to ridicule and dismiss my post on secular morality calling me stupid or ignorant. One must expect that their views on morality must be so advanced, so nuanced, so well thought out as to justify such derision and off-hand dismissal. When I finally pry a non-ad-hominem reply out of John V, here is the jewel in the crown of his religious-based morality (have a seat and get ready):

It’s good because god wills it

That's right, Yahweh wills what is or is not good.

Christians have the audacity and bigotry to ridicule atheists for having no "absolute" or "objective" standard of morality and yet when pressed to state their own source of such objective or absolute standard, they have nothing to offer but this childish and shallow bare assertion that "big guy in the sky says so".

North Koreans have a similar source of "absolute" or "objective" standards of right and wrong. Kim Jung Un and his will decide such things. What he wills is "good" and what he doesn't like is "bad". Mafia Dons and military Juntas can offer sources of similar standards of morality.

In the first place, anyone who's not indoctrinated so thoroughly as to use such special pleading with no sense of irony can easily see that this basis for determining morals is neither "objective" nor "absolute".

By definition, "objective" can't depend on the will or opinions of any being, however wise or powerful that being might be. Christians don't have an "objective" source of morals. They simply defer their moral judgment to the whims of an imaginary god. This is no more "objective" then letting Kim Jung Un decide what's right or wrong for you.

But is Yahweh's moral standard "absolute"? Shouldn't this mean unchanging, that the laws laid down today won't blow with the winds tomorrow? Yahweh's will, if the Bible is any indication, is as fickle as the warlords that made him up. His standards are hardly "absolute". The same god says on one day to "love your neighbor" and "do not murder" and on another day to "smite Amalak" including all the women, children and elderly.

Christian apologies ties themselves into knots attempting to justify the genocide, slavery and mass rape documented in the OT as the ancient Hebrews allegedly carved a bloody path to their promised land. Yahweh must have had a "good reason" to order such atrocities, as if there could ever be a good reason for them. The truth is that Yahweh has all the moral credibility of Big Brother.

Ultimately, this is a "might-makes-right" view on morality. Yahweh is the only god out there and what he says goes and if you don't like it, go to Hell, literally. It is both a childish, vapid moral philosophy (if one can even be so charitable as to even call it a philosophy) as well as one that is morally bankrupt.

Frankly, anyone who flippantly declares...

It’s good because god wills it

...has already demonstrated an inability to think about morality beyond Kohlberg's "pre-conventional" stage of moral reasoning and is certainly in no position to either call me "ignorant" or look down on me as having no moral compass.

Note: Since the other thread has been resurrected, I'll post my direct response to John V there.
Disclaimer: I have not yet had a chance to read his latest response and will do so later this evening when I have a chance and will post on the other thread. This post is simply based on some thoughts I had today regarding his initial response and that particular gem of a quote.