Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Rahul]

Your position is illogical. If god's omniscience means that our every thought and action are predetermined, then we're not autonomous beings with any rights at all. No one calls Stephen King evil because his characters suffer.

Your concept of god is illogical. If god already knows that we will do something at the age of 30 or 40 that is so bad that he is justified killing us, as he did to tons of little ones in the OT, as babies, where are we free to decide to act differently?

God knows everything, right?

So he knows what you are going to do on next Friday morning. He knows it for a fact. And he's known it before he even created humanity.

So go ahead and decide to do something differently. You can't. God knew you were going to do that 13.7 billion years ago.

No free will. Nothing you have ever done was something that surprised god ever. He knew you were going to do that exact thing at that exact moment 13.7 billion years ago.

Are you starting to understand the problem? When you say my view of your fictional god is jacked, this should be a light bulb popping up in your head, that I'm just pointing out the logical conclusions of this god concept that are completely illogical.

Resolve those retarded logical conclusions to yourself, make sense of it, and then come back to us and debate.

You want to know something? No Christian has EVER resolved those things and come back to debate with any atheist anywhere.

Why?

Because they fucking became an atheist trying to resolve them.

You are compartmentalizing. Read up on it. All Christians do this. Heck, all theists do this. You are holding mutually incompatible concepts in your head at the same time.

[fr0d0]

That's what immoral is. Wrong decisions.

Wrong. Mistakes based on faulty information are not immoral.

Great. So deluded homicidal maniacs are acting morally.
You are addressing secular morality where this applies: everything is moral if the perpetrator is ignorant of morals outside of there sphere of understanding.
Hence secular morality is worthless.
And you demonstrate ignorance of theistic morality.

---

Ultimate Morality isn't knowable to any being that isn't all knowing.

1. If something isn't knowable, how do you know it exists?
2. All things that exist are knowable by the following logic:

• If it exists, it can be observed
  
• If it can be observed, it can be studied
  
• If it can be studied, it can be understood
  
• If it can be understood, it can be explained
  
• If it can be explained, it is knowable
  

You're providing me rope to hang you with. I can't quite believe your naivety with this language. I'm sorry, I assumed wrongly that I was talking with someone familiar with it. We can understand something of God through logical deduction. Everything isn't knowable. To say that we can't know as much as god and his morals isn't saying that we can't deduce part of it. Otherwise how do you think anything is said about morality at all?

[Savannahw]

I was unaware that homocideal manics were right in the head. Are y'all including crazy people in the argue ment of morality?

[fr0d0]

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.

You keep asserting that. Assertions, however often repeated, do not make something true.

I use the simple tools you outline above. Look at the evidence of the examples I'm giving you and address them rather than saying "oh no it isn't"

---

I was unaware that homocideal manics were right in the head. Are y'all including crazy people in the argue ment of morality?

Apparently DeistPaladin argues exactly that. Homicidal maniacs are indeed acting morally.

[DeistPaladin]

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 are addressing secular morality where this applies: everything is moral if the perpetrator is ignorant of morals outside of there [sic] 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?

And you demonstrate ignorance of theistic morality.

Well, when you lose an argument, you can always use ad hominems. That was barely more mature than "oh yeah, well, you're stupid, so there."

Everything isn't knowable.

How do you know? And what makes you think you can know about the unknowable? Enough to say what the unknowable morality of God is something you can evaluate to be superior to secular morals?

[DeistPaladin]

Apparently DeistPaladin argues exactly that. Homicidal maniacs are indeed acting morally.

I'd accuse you of strawmanning me but I suspect you're just losing it and so I'll forgive you as you aren't acting in your right mind.

[Silver]

Everything isn't knowable.

How do you know? And what makes you think you can know about the unknowable? Enough to say what the unknowable morality of God is something you can evaluate to be superior to secular morals?

Apparently, he, like most theists, is fond of using the same impaired reasoning for knowing that unicorns exist to claim that God exists as the only perfect example of morality.

[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?

[fr0d0]

This is the most moral time in human history as a result of religions being rejected.

You would have to say that, and so would I. This is what field secular morality. The current view is always right.

Religion is currently seriously on the decline, and what morality we have is heavily influenced by it. We shall see when religious influence has gone what morality looks like then. I can't see what underpins justice currently: Christian based ethics, lasting.

I was talking about junior school swearing today. When I was a kid my friends swore like troupers. It was a difficult duality with family life. Nowadays kids swear just the same, but it's more accepted in society that it's OK. Look at film ratings. Kids films are full of swearing. It's like we're afraid to set standards.

---

Look at Iran and the middle east in general to see what happens when theistic morality is in charge, it was the same sad tale of overly oppressive punishments here when christianity ruled the roost.

You know this to be true.

I have no doubt that you yourself are a good moral man, but that is despite your religion not because of it.

Theism is used and abused for power. I don't think that's a fair judgement.

I don't think I'm any more moral than the next person. I'm probably a lot less. I know some very good non believers though. My faith gives me reason to aim higher. I have to be inspired by it.

Maybe the dictatorial religions got it right. Forcing morality is the only way.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

You and he keep repeating this straw man argument but that's not what I've ever written on the topic of morality. I've said repeatedly in this thread that there are far more satisfying explanations for the nature of what morality is and what is moral beyond "big invisible sky daddy says so".

For example, we could discuss The Social Contract. We treat others the way we would wish to be treated. We as humans are empathetic beings as well as community organisms. We feel the pain of others and seek to minimize that pain. We bond together in communities and seek to bring about laws that best help society to function. What we call "morality" is a measurement of how we treat our fellow sentient beings, that we respect one another's rights and act with integrity, as we would have others act with us.

There are other philosophies we can call upon to aid our discussion of morality. Perhaps we could go with Bentham and his Utility-based principles? He came the closest to convincing me there is an "objective" basis of morality. By his theory, there is a sum total of pleasure and pain in the universe, totals which can vary with our actions. Actions that help relieve pain or enhance the pleasure of others tends to be morally correct. It's not a perfect system but we can discuss the merits and flaws of it to help elucidate our understanding of morality.

Or maybe we'd like to review Rawls and his Veil of Ignorance, where morality can be evaluated by imagining that we will be in the situation but we don't know which role. We would want to resolve the issue or create a society that contains the most justice because we couldn't be sure in which role we would end up.

It may shock you and John V but there are many different philosophers out there who have discussed morality without ever having to fall back on GodWillsIt and yet they also don't throw up their hands and say "oh well, it's just a matter of who is strongest or has the most popularity".

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

Uh oh. Someone's projecting.

I'm trying to investigate how you're giving the judge a free pass where morals don't apply to his judgement.

There is no "free pass". Making an error in judgment due to faulty evidence is not a moral issue.

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.

Yes, I'm aware this is how you want to depict your god. However, your god isn't interested in right or wrong. If I have accepted Jesus, I have my slate wiped clean. If I have not, I'm tortured for all eternity regardless of my best attempts to be a good person. Faith (or gullibility) is all that matters to Yahweh.

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

Logical conclusion based on what evidence or what logical progression. All I've seen you do is come up with a contrived definition of your god as "good" and the follow with the assertion that since he's defined as good, all his decisions are good. And we know that he is good because all his decisions are good. This is begging the question.

The rest of your post is just "blah blah blah, God is good, he just wants you to connect with him, he's just in his judgments on Judgment Day yatta yatta, bare assertion, bare assertion, article of faith goes here"