Why Secular Morality is Superior

[fr0d0]

he might have mispoke as I did.

He didn't miss speak at all. He was perfectly clear. Secular morality is a popularity contest. The only reason the mafia don isn't regarded as moral is that a greater power exists. If he had more power then his morals would apply.
Big business runs our world, calls the shots and dictates morality. A starving person will be punished for stealing, but the business gets away with lying and stealing as legitimate part of its function. You and I might think that is wrong with our secular moral stance, but there's nothing we can do about it. We buy into the system.


DP: Shall I stop? You seem to have retreated to ad hominem in your latest replies.

---

Great. So deluded homicidal maniacs are acting morally.

Insanity can be a defense both in a court of law or in our moral evaluations of an action but that doesn't mean the action was "moral". Moral evaluation may not enter into it.

You didn't wait for my complete reply, so I shall continue from where you cut in.

So explain the moral position if this example.

---

You are addressing secular morality where this applies: everything is moral if the perpetrator is ignorant of morals outside of their sphere of understanding.

You're playing some mental slight of hand there. One moment ago, we were discussing a judge making a mistake based on incomplete or faulty evidence, not morals outside their sphere of understanding. What does that even mean, anyway?

I'm trying to investigate how you're giving the judge a free pass where morals don't apply to his judgement.
I'm comparing him to God as a fellow judge, albeit bound by popular thought and a huge lack of knowledge.
God is depicted as making moral judgements, some extremely harsh in resulting in a death sentence. Yet God is not susceptible to populist pressure or lack of knowledge in arriving at his judgements. And yet you call him immoral.

"Sphere of understanding" = what a person would reasonably be expected to know.

---

First, we have the bare assertion that God is perfectly moral. Then we follow with the circular reasoning that since God is perfectly moral, all of God's decisions are moral. And since God's decisions are moral, we know that God is moral. So we know that God is good because God is good and that's how we know God is good.

It's not a bare assertion. It's a simple logical conclusion of God.

If you wish to address the subject, you need to confront it rather than twist it into something else or any argument falls down straight away and can be justifiably discounted.

As I presume you wish to offer some real challenge here I'd hope you'd want to get back on topic.

I presume you are genuinely ignorant of any coherent arguments for and against belief in God, although I must express great surprise at that as I thought you we're a serious challenger.

---

Hell is the immediate just reward for immorality.

No, Hell is the punishment for non-belief. Morality doesn't enter into it. The only criteria is gullibility and being luck enough to be indoctrinated correctly.

I commend your confidence as someone professing a lack of understanding telling a practitioner what they should be doing.

Hell isn't the punishment for disbelief. Disbelief means the opposition to anything good. You radio the rewards if that in this life. All that should concern us right now.

Morality is a measure of goodness is it not? To connect to God is to connect to goodness. Rebelling against goodness is it's own reward.
Life isn't fair. It is burger good or bad. Posthumously God judges and exacts justice to make life fair. Morality serves a purpose and is fulfilled.

Indoctrination and gullibility don't buy heaven, because they don't involve choosing good.

---

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.

Human beings are sovereign. Rights are not about opinions.

In what reality?