Man's morality

[genkaus]

I have posted this definition several times in past posts, I thought it needs to be brought up again because of how all the noobs seem to understand and misuse the word.

I've corrected your definition several times in the past but clearly I need to do it again. At the very least, so that no noobs are confused by your misunderstanding and misuse of the word.

Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard based on the sin he or the society he lives in is willing to except Incorporated into that standard.

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Morality is man's attempt to establish a code of conduct to live his life by. It is a set of principles to be used to evaluate and guide his actions and those of other humans. It is not based on a preconceived notion of righteousness or sin - quite the reverse, in fact, what one regards as righteous is determined by the moral system.

You claim that at some point, your god came up with a set of principles that could be used to guide and judge human actions (after making similarly unsubstantiated claims about there being a god and him giving two shits about human existence). Even if that was the case - and it is a BIG IF - then those principles would form god's morality. Whatever is righteous according to that morality would be god's righteousness. And since sin is defined as something that goes against god's morality, anything that goes against that morality would be sinful by definition.

Saying that man's morality - something that is not dictated by your god - does not match up to your god's morality is trivial and pointless. Your god's morality does not match up to man's morality either. And why would man's morality even need to achieve your god's standard of righteousness? Because your god's morality said so? So fucking what?

Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.

Thus showing that your god's morality is an inadequate standard to live by. Using s rigid and unchanging set of principles that shows no consideration to the context actions take place in is not a standard people can use to guide their whole lives. It would be irrational to do so. Which is why they shouldn't. Which is why they don't.

Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

A much smarter principle than a code blind to context.

That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.

But then, your god's morality is not a universal standard of good either. How could it be, if it is not universally accepted. As it happens, a constantly changing and reasonable moral system is much better than one that is unchanging and unreasonable - which is what your so-called god's morality is.

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not. To say "God is not moral" is not the insult you think it is. That is like a death camp nazi saying a German citizen is not 'moral, because he is hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Why? Because your morality like the death camp nazi's morality is based on ever declining scale. The fact there is so much distance between what you think is right and what God has declared as righteous only points to how far you and your 'morality' has fallen beyond true righteousness.

I say this to help those momentarily confused by your ramblings. Only within a theistic context are the questions regarding morality assume it to be an absolute standard. That's because, within that context, the morality refers to your god's morality, which, according to you, is an absolute standard.

When atheists say "god is not moral", what they are actually saying is that your god fails to follow his own morality. That he fails to live up to his own standard of righteousness. Though, I have to agree, such an argument is pointless, because the first principle of your god's morality seems to be that whatever he does is moral by definition. Apparently, your god is a Tautological Templar.