Why Secular Morality is Superior

[fr0d0]

Secular morality is no more than a fashion statement. It never progresses. It merely changes.

Why can these changes never be progress?

Theistic morality neither progresses or changes.

If an ultimate morality could change it wouldn't be true would it.

We might call it progress when it's in effect a backward step. Only with hindsight can we appreciate that. To us we're the best we could be. We genuinely believe that.

---

Not that I know if any Christian that does this.

Of course, they do. They believe in Him because they do not want to burn in Hell for upsetting sky daddy.

If you say so. The bible says the opposite though.

And this is not then a choice then is it. The person isn't making any moral decision.

---

A judge can try to make a moral decision but he is limited by information. So his decision could be unjust/ immoral.

Morality has nothing to do with honest mistakes due to insufficient information. A judge or mistakenly sentences an innocent man because all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt is not immoral, just wrong.

That's what immoral is. Wrong decisions. If in your head the information points to rape being morally right, are you not acting immorally when you commit rape?

---

And so morality exists outside of and independent to God. God, to you, is the being knowledgeable enough and wise enough to measure and determine what is moral. Then morality is something that can theoretically be discovered without God. And what is "good" and "bad" would remain so even if God tried to say otherwise, died, went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

Ultimate Morality isn't knowable to any being that isn't all knowing. Unless you can present any other being besides a god that has this ability.

Flawed secular morality is a human attribute which can logically be understood by evolution. What I'd good and bad according to secular morality changes according to the balance of power and whatever else is in the interest of the majority.

---

This view contradicts the view John V offered, that God decides what is moral. Morality is a set of rules made up arbitrarily by a being. God decides what is good or bad by divine fiat. This "morality" is fabricated by a being, however wise or powerful you may attribute this being to be, and so is neither "objective" nor "absolute", by the definition of these terms. John V's theistic morality is based entirely on a concept of "might makes right" and he even said so.

You seem to be claiming to know what God thinks. John said that secular morality equated to "might makes right", which is exactly what it is.
God doesn't "decide" what is moral. God is perfectly moral. That is what divine goodness is. You seem to need to destroy this observation to make your pointless claim. God forces nothing, or you wouldn't have the choice to act immorally. Whether or not you choose to accept morality is up to you. Hell is the immediate just reward for immorality.

---

The mafia judge represents secular morality here. John V makes a very good point... popularity is all that keeps his morality from being law.

No, the victimization of another, the violations of the rights of others, is not moral.

Tosh.

It's victimisation as long as it happens to be what you disagree with. In a society where your view was a minority one, secular law would punish you.

Your moral correctness is decided by the majority vote.

---

On down the list. Humans are evolving not just biologically but also morally.

All I see you addressing here is the historical proof of the failure of secular morality to act with justice. Never once do you address divine morality. It seems that you don't understand what it is.