Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 3, 2012 at 2:33 am)Godschild Wrote: You are absolutely wrong on both accounts, first of all you added to my statement about the artist so you fail to prove any point. I never said the artist sold his works and second God does not give away life He created it and it is His for eternity,
Never happened.
Quote: He is the One who payed for it on the cross.
Never happened.
Quote: He makes it clear,
this one also...never...happenned
Quote: what was done on the cross applies to the past, present and future.
What you hope was done on the cross is fucking horrid, just had to add my personal opinion here, one which you likely share in any other arena. CD at play.
Quote: Go study scriptures then come back and try and make a reasonable argument.
The last place you're going to find anything reasonable is scripture GC. Dragons, ghost stories, apocalypses-that-never-were, and magic...sure, plenty of that in there.
Quote:Secular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be
I know you have some imaginative fantasy for how religious morality came to be, but unfortunately, such is not the case. They are identical in this regard.
Quote: why don't you go argue your point with the Chinese or Russians, tell them they have to apply morality as you see it. First you should become a citizen of those countries and then tell them.
People do try to argue things like this with them - regardless of whether or not they are citizens. It's hit or miss.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 31, 2012 at 8:00 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Plato started off wrong when he wrote about socrates and euthyphro. He didn't know his creator and therefore grouped all "gods" under the same category. There is no dilemma for those who know the biblical God.
Whose bible? Yours? Seems to make the OP's point!
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(September 3, 2012 at 2:33 am)Godschild Wrote: Secular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be, why don't you go argue your point with the Chinese or Russians, tell them they have to apply morality as you see it. First you should become a citizen of those countries and then tell them.
A vacuous point that applies equally to you anyway. Why don't you argue your point with the Chinese or Russians and tell them they have to apply morality as Christianity sees it? You should become a citizen of one of those countries and then tell them. And? All it demonstrates in either formulation is the unwillingness of China or Russia to adopt people's pet morality.
Also, "the ones in power" write laws in every country, by extension determining morality (at least to some degree; i.e., killing is wrong, etc.). However, this ignores the fact that in secular first world countries the ones in power are elected representatives. The US, UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, to name a few (I know not all of them are technically secular), are not dictatorships (which I acknowledge you haven't said) and elect people to represent the population. Despite their problems they're very good places to live. You make it sound (perhaps unintentionally or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you) as if secularity leads to oppressive regimes, or that the ones in power don't determine law in non-secular countries, neither of which is true. The ones in power determine morality to some degree in every country. The difference is in how far they go and how heavy handed they are in enforcing it.
Why in secular morality is murder considered immoral, why can't it be considered moral? There are those who do not think murder is immoral, why should they have to be forced to live by the morality of the majority. All the atheist and nonbelievers I've spoken to do not believe they should have to live by God's moral code, necessarily, yet the majority in this country believe that God's moral code is better than the rest.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(September 2, 2012 at 1:21 am)elunico13 Wrote: So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.
Haven't you noticed? Nothing does prevent the next person from asserting the exact opposite. Not secular humanism, not the bible and certainly not your god. We are never on sure moral ground interpersonally. You have to check it out. Look for agreement but note divergences.
I no more find my own moral feelings diminished by this than I feel my hetero marriage under-mined by homosexual marriage. Some things aren't up to me and they aren't up to you either. I only wish more theists would understand this point. A little moral humility isn't a bad thing.
September 4, 2012 at 3:49 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 3:49 am by Justtristo.)
(August 31, 2012 at 8:00 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Plato started off wrong when he wrote about socrates and euthyphro. He didn't know his creator and therefore grouped all "gods" under the same category. There is no dilemma for those who know the biblical God.
Psalm 96:5
For all the gods of the nations [are] idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
Does anyone know the difference between Christianity and all other religions, including humanism and naturalism?
The LORD does not command morality because it exists outside of him.
Cain murdered his brother Able in Gen 4 before God gave the command not to murder (Gen 9). Cain already knew he did wrong without God telling him after the fact. The reason is Cain and all human beings are made in the image of God and have a conscience (con - with/science - knowledge) given by him to know good. (Gen 1)
The biblical God does not randomly command morality either just because he likes or loves it.
Going back to Gen 4 the first murder by Cain. No command was ever given to not murder, yet Cain and Abel are both made in the image of God and therefore Cain is responsible to his maker for his actions. With the biblical God no commands need to be given by him in order for us to know not to murder. that's why there is no "euthyphro dilemma".
How do I know that God is good?
Without the biblical God you can't have morality make sense. Nor any type of human experience. Sin wouldn't exist nor make any sense.
There is no vicious circular argument. It's a virtuous one and it comes from the bible as my ultimate standard for truth.
The "might equals right" is an evolutionary dilemma. The weak die out and the strong survive even if it means murder. But murder shouldn't even be considered evil according to evolution. This would cause a descriptive process to be prescriptive and make it impossible for morality to exist and a need for justice to be served.
In an evolution worldview acting like animals should be expected yet there is a behavioral inconsistency between humans and animals.
Do we put the lion in jail for killing the antelope? Why do we kill the cannibal in Florida for eating the homeless man?
Who thinks they can tell me why murder is wrong apart from the biblical God?
Get it through your head, evolution is not about the survival of the fittest it is about survival of the best adapted.
For example; we humans have thrived because we are a extremely adaptive species, this high adaptability is because of our intelligence and also that unlike other primate species, we are a “herd” species. Since Homo Sapiens and it's ancestors in the genus Homo have lived for a very long time in herds (about 100 individuals or more), where everybody knew everybody else. Having altruistic behaviour towards our fellow “herd” members helped immensely our adaptation into different habitats.
However for the last several thousand years, as a result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, we have organised ourselves into communities which many times bigger than the herds of 100-150 persons we lived in for hundreds of thousands of years. So it is not surprising that the altruistic behaviour towards different herd members in hunter gatherer times, evolved into the complex systems of morality and ethics we see today.
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright describes what I have describing in more detail.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am)Godschild Wrote: Why in secular morality is murder considered immoral, why can't it be considered moral?
Because, there is not rational or logical reason to consider it so.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am)Godschild Wrote: There are those who do not think murder is immoral, why should they have to be forced to live by the morality of the majority.
Majority is irrelevant. Murder would still be immoral even if majority were in favor of it.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am)Godschild Wrote: All the atheist and nonbelievers I've spoken to do not believe they should have to live by God's moral code, necessarily, yet the majority in this country believe that God's moral code is better than the rest.
Thus proving the point that the opinion of majority is irrelevant to secular morality otherwise everyone in your country would be forced to live by god's moral code.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am)Godschild Wrote: Why in secular morality is murder considered immoral, why can't it be considered moral? There are those who do not think murder is immoral, why should they have to be forced to live by the morality of the majority.
...and here we go again. How many times is this? Do I get a prize for repeating it for the 100th time? Maybe then it will sink in?
Murder is morally wrong because it violates the will and rights of another. We as community beings that humans are, live and survive by a social contract. Those who would want to be able to murder others without being murdered themselves are in violation of that social contract and guilty of hypocrisy. Additionally, we are empathetic beings, we feel one another's pain and would not want such pain visited upon us.
What I wrote about is a far better explanation of what morality is than what the Christians offer "cause big invisible sky daddy sez so" which is nothing more than an appeal to authority and might-makes-right. In your case GC, you have said you are quite comfortable with your god making up rules and enforcing them arbitrarily, but this is not morality at all.
Quote:All the atheist and nonbelievers I've spoken to do not believe they should have to live by God's moral code, necessarily, yet the majority in this country believe that God's moral code is better than the rest.
How many of them know what that moral code even is? How many have read Leviticus or the rest of the Bible? Of those who do, what does it mean to live by Yahweh's laws and yet disregard them at will because "Jesus died for that."?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
September 4, 2012 at 11:47 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 11:48 am by Tempus.)
(September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am)Godschild Wrote:
(September 3, 2012 at 5:02 am)Tempus Wrote:
A vacuous point that applies equally to you anyway. Why don't you argue your point with the Chinese or Russians and tell them they have to apply morality as Christianity sees it? You should become a citizen of one of those countries and then tell them. And? All it demonstrates in either formulation is the unwillingness of China or Russia to adopt people's pet morality.
Also, "the ones in power" write laws in every country, by extension determining morality (at least to some degree; i.e., killing is wrong, etc.). However, this ignores the fact that in secular first world countries the ones in power are elected representatives. The US, UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, to name a few (I know not all of them are technically secular), are not dictatorships (which I acknowledge you haven't said) and elect people to represent the population. Despite their problems they're very good places to live. You make it sound (perhaps unintentionally or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you) as if secularity leads to oppressive regimes, or that the ones in power don't determine law in non-secular countries, neither of which is true. The ones in power determine morality to some degree in every country. The difference is in how far they go and how heavy handed they are in enforcing it.
Why in secular morality is murder considered immoral, why can't it be considered moral? There are those who do not think murder is immoral, why should they have to be forced to live by the morality of the majority. All the atheist and nonbelievers I've spoken to do not believe they should have to live by God's moral code, necessarily, yet the majority in this country believe that God's moral code is better than the rest.
I was arguing against your point that "[s]ecular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be". You haven't conceded the point or challenged my refutation. To recap my response:
The ones in power in all countries write laws which, to some extent, determine the moral code of that society regardless of whether they're secular or not.
Those in power in secular countries are, for the most part, elected representatives.
Many secular countries have laws protecting minorities against mob rule.
So no, secular morality* isn't what "the ones in power determine it to be".
*I'll point out here that I'm aware my posts come close to conflating secular morality and secular law, however, in the context of challenging the "those in power" point I think it's a fair response. Secular morality on its own is obviously not determined by people in power since a secular ethics can be developed by anyone who feels so inclined - entirely in their head if they want.
Even if it were the comparison would simply be an appeal to hypocrisy, so who gives a shit? Not this guy.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm (This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm by elunico13.)
(September 3, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Ryantology Wrote:
(September 2, 2012 at 1:21 am)elunico13 Wrote: So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.
What keeps the next person from asserting the exact opposite is that most people also possess empathy. Sociopathy is not the basic state of the developed human mind. It's what keeps you from killing, too. You just make the mistake of attributing it to the fictional character you worship.
What makes me laugh is that you cite morality as being the exclusive domain of a god who says "thou shalt not kill", but allows for so many horrifying and arbitrary exceptions which so many of his slaves have gleefully exploited for millennia. The morality of Yahweh, if it can be said to be moral at all, is demonstrably inferior to my own for that reason alone.
EMPATHY
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this.
There are plenty of empathetic serial killers who love their wives and children and have their favorite charities also. Notice how there is no obligation to be empathetic, which is an arbitrary standard of morality you are imposing on others. Nobody is obligated to listen to ryantology. According to you we can arbitrarily choose who to be empathetic to also.
SOCIOPATHIC
of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder
By what standard is your brain fully develpoed? Did evolution stop? If not, then you don't know that your brain is in a sociopathic state.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:55 am)whateverist Wrote:
(September 2, 2012 at 1:21 am)elunico13 Wrote: So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.
Haven't you noticed? Nothing does prevent the next person from asserting the exact opposite. Not secular humanism, not the bible and certainly not your god. We are never on sure moral ground interpersonally. You have to check it out. Look for agreement but note divergences.
I no more find my own moral feelings diminished by this than I feel my hetero marriage under-mined by homosexual marriage. Some things aren't up to me and they aren't up to you either. I only wish more theists would understand this point. A little moral humility isn't a bad thing.
Serial killers excert the exact opposite.
I guess you're fine with pedofilia too. Don't wanna be intolerant, right? lol
Don't respond with your first emotional/knee jerk reaction. Think things through. After all you're in the philosophical thread. That goes for your politics too.
(September 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm)elunico13 Wrote: There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?
You didn't say anything rational to object to. All you have presented are a bunch of lies and misrepresentations. The only rational response to that is pointing out that you are totally and completely wrong. And that's not an objection - it's a correction.
Why should LYING be wrong if we are just a result of random mutations that just happened to convey some sort of survival value?
(September 3, 2012 at 2:02 am)Brunitski Wrote: Our "morals", necessarily complex because of our extraordinarily complicated social interactions, are derived from evolutionary traits selecting for altruism and empathy; which incidentally we share with many other species. There are no absolute "morals". The concept of morals is a construct with its origins in the 14thC - it's original usage pertaining to "correct behaviour in society", or more aligned with customs, social mores and norms or ethics. Your obsession with the providence of "Morals" is entirely subjective.
Then I guess you wouldn't seek justice for the violent murder of a next of kin. After all the killer can adopt his relative morality of murder if he wants to. You're not going to say that he's wrong are you lol?
You're actually consistant with the evoltution worldview if you believe this. Congratulations!
Evolution can't prescribe how we ought to behave since it's descriptive.
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
