Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Tempus]

If you took philosophy and didn't see any flaws with an atheist view accounting for morality than what were you doing? Did the professors convince you?

You see that, whateverist? Your study is worthless unless you conclude it as a theist! Obviously you did it wrong. Morality can't exist outside Lord Jesus. If he catches you with illegal good intentions or charity without a permit he'll break your legs. And then heal them. And then break them again.

[Ryantology]

Sorry about dodging the second part. Since there are terrible crimes in the bible then you should be able to tell me why they're terrible.

They are terrible because I would not want any of them perpetrated on myself. I would not want to be killed, maimed, turned into a rape slave, have my property stolen or destroyed, have my children's brains dashed out on rocks, etc. My morality is formed on a very clear basis: certain things can cause me great amounts of stress, pain, or outright annihilation, and I do not want any of those things done to me. It would, therefore, be immoral to do those things to others, because my experience in interacting with other people indicates to me that none of them want these things done to them, proving to me that my morality is not based on quirks unique to myself.

That's all I, or anyone, needs to know. I do not ever want to experience harm, except the kind which is an absolutely necessary by-product of a process which will ultimately improve my life. Harm for the sake of harm is terrible, to me, and my experience tells me the vast majority of people agree with this. That is the basis of my morality. It is far stronger, and more beneficial to everyone I encounter, therefore it is the superior morality in every way, especially compared to the morals of a book which gleefully permits so many things I, or almost anyone else, could never find moral. It's why even believers, all but the most insanely literal at least, have long since cherrypicked biblical morals and keep the ones which are mostly similar to what I described. Unfortunately, they do still pick a lot which are harmful to other people simply for the sake of harming them, though, of course, they wrap up their immorality in pages of the bible, so that they can pretend it isn't evil.

Why do I choose the term 'evil'? Because there's no more concise way to describe moral evil than 'harming for harm's sake'.

How do you know your brain is fully developed and not in a sociopathic state? "My brain tells me".

I do not rely solely on my brain for this information. I rely on outside knowledge, the way people interact with me, and the relatively objective observations of others (such as the science of biology and the study of psychology) which give me the knowledge that my brain is mostly finished in its physiological development and that my mental state is in no way exceedingly out of whack. I could not possibly form a meaningful picture of my mental state if I had nothing to compare it to.

It is the theist which derives entire worldviews from single sources they insist are infallible; you shouldn't make that mistake about me.

[Whateverist]

So what if it turned out there is no such thing as a soul and I am just the by-product of my cranial activity? In the here-and-now I am still a conscious, self-aware being. I think. I feel. And if you prick me, I bleed. I'm not an object and my own compassion leads me to not treat any of my fellow human beings as such. This is why those of us who don't believe in a personal celestial father somehow get through life just fine and still manage to relate to one another in a healthy and compassionate manner, thank you very much.

You certainly seem to be speaking slowly enough and explaining the big words as you go with footnotes. But nothing seems capable of stopping the endlessly sputtered "but, but, but .." of the nothing-means-nothing-without-god bunch.

In the end I think we have to realize this isn't really a conversation between equals. So many in the gotta-be-god crowd just don't really listen and so the only ones who hear what you're saying are those of us in the choir. So let me just say I'm giving you a "10" for this response. You get high clarity scores as well as high responsiveness scores.

We simply can't judge our success on whether those who won't listen understand or not. Of course they won't.

---

If you took philosophy and didn't see any flaws with an atheist view accounting for morality than what were you doing? Did the professors convince you?

You see that, whateverist? Your study is worthless unless you conclude it as a theist! Obviously you did it wrong. Morality can't exist outside Lord Jesus. If he catches you with illegal good intentions or charity without a permit he'll break your legs. And then heal them. And then break them again.

Yep, and to think I wasted all that time doing it wrong. If only I had resisted being convinced by my professors so that I could be receptive to this moron's prattle. My older brother has this same idea of academic success.

He's convinced that academic success is a question of feeding back the prof's ideas exactly the way they put them out. Rough and tough people like himself who think for themselves are always penalized in an academic setting. It is this idea which has the U.S. electorate convinced that a C- president you'd like to have a beer with is as good if not better than one talks about all that shit you don't understand anyway.

[Brunitski]

Actually some "scientists" in the areas of historical science think life came from non life.

If thats the case then why does any mutation called "human" have any authority to impose morality on others. How can this blind faith account for morality? It can't.

Is there anyone in this thread that can help Genkaus out?

I bet These are the same "scientists" who say the world is 3.8 Billion years old or some such nonsense.
Huh. Scientists and their "evidence".

Oh, and I think Genkaus has you nuts in an appropriate vice. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Godscreated]

Go back and listen to the music.

What music?

Exactly!

[greneknight]

What music?

Exactly!

Good Lord! Is that what you consider an argument, Godschild? You need years of training before you can engage in a battle with Sir Greneknight. This sort of nonsense talk may be acceptable in the children's playground but surely not in the field of battle!

[genkaus]

What music?

Exactly!

Are you coherent? Or is this new strategy to distract from actual arguments?

[elunico13]

THE most superior form of morality is that which enables one to lead the life one wishes, with a clear conscience.

Then don't condemn the rapist and child molester if that's the life they choose to live. How do you know that violates their conscience? And what obligation do they have to follow an an immaterial "urge" in a materialistic universe? None. It's an arbitrary standard set by padraic.

Going by the way Christians have behaved throughout history,one can only assume Judeo-Christian morality is perfectly designed for such an endeavor.

Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not incompatible with a life of sin (Ambrose Bierce)

Wrong. Many non christians believe the NT is divinely inspired also. You're judging the behavior of another without a standard to do so. If you assert your own its only arbitrary. Man has no authority for setting moral standards. Only your creator.

---

Sorry about dodging the second part. Since there are terrible crimes in the bible then you should be able to tell me why they're terrible.

They are terrible because I would not want any of them perpetrated on myself. I would not want to be killed, maimed, turned into a rape slave, have my property stolen or destroyed, have my children's brains dashed out on rocks, etc. My morality is formed on a very clear basis: certain things can cause me great amounts of stress, pain, or outright annihilation, and I do not want any of those things done to me. It would, therefore, be immoral to do those things to others, because my experience in interacting with other people indicates to me that none of them want these things done to them, proving to me that my morality is not based on quirks unique to myself.

That's all I, or anyone, needs to know. I do not ever want to experience harm, except the kind which is an absolutely necessary by-product of a process which will ultimately improve my life. Harm for the sake of harm is terrible, to me, and my experience tells me the vast majority of people agree with this. That is the basis of my morality. It is far stronger, and more beneficial to everyone I encounter, therefore it is the superior morality in every way, especially compared to the morals of a book which gleefully permits so many things I, or almost anyone else, could never find moral. It's why even believers, all but the most insanely literal at least, have long since cherrypicked biblical morals and keep the ones which are mostly similar to what I described. Unfortunately, they do still pick a lot which are harmful to other people simply for the sake of harming them, though, of course, they wrap up their immorality in pages of the bible, so that they can pretend it isn't evil.

Why do I choose the term 'evil'? Because there's no more concise way to describe moral evil than 'harming for harm's sake'.

How do you know your brain is fully developed and not in a sociopathic state? "My brain tells me".

I do not rely solely on my brain for this information. I rely on outside knowledge, the way people interact with me, and the relatively objective observations of others (such as the science of biology and the study of psychology) which give me the knowledge that my brain is mostly finished in its physiological development and that my mental state is in no way exceedingly out of whack. I could not possibly form a meaningful picture of my mental state if I had nothing to compare it to.

It is the theist which derives entire worldviews from single sources they insist are infallible; you shouldn't make that mistake about me.

Did you use your brain to come up with this conclusion? See the problem?
You use your brain to make these judgments and you've done nothing to show that your brain is fully developed to arrive at any valid conclusion.

I just see the fallacy of begging the question.

[greneknight]

THE most superior form of morality is that which enables one to lead the life one wishes, with a clear conscience.

Then don't condemn the rapist and child molester if that's the life they choose to live. How do you know that violates their conscience? And what obligation do they have to follow an an immaterial "urge" in a materialistic universe? None. It's an arbitrary standard set by padraic.

Going by the way Christians have behaved throughout history,one can only assume Judeo-Christian morality is perfectly designed for such an endeavor.

Wrong. Many non christians believe the NT is divinely inspired also. You're judging the behavior of another without a standard to do so. If you assert your own its only arbitrary. Man has no authority for setting moral standards. Only your creator.

---

They are terrible because I would not want any of them perpetrated on myself. I would not want to be killed, maimed, turned into a rape slave, have my property stolen or destroyed, have my children's brains dashed out on rocks, etc. My morality is formed on a very clear basis: certain things can cause me great amounts of stress, pain, or outright annihilation, and I do not want any of those things done to me. It would, therefore, be immoral to do those things to others, because my experience in interacting with other people indicates to me that none of them want these things done to them, proving to me that my morality is not based on quirks unique to myself.

That's all I, or anyone, needs to know. I do not ever want to experience harm, except the kind which is an absolutely necessary by-product of a process which will ultimately improve my life. Harm for the sake of harm is terrible, to me, and my experience tells me the vast majority of people agree with this. That is the basis of my morality. It is far stronger, and more beneficial to everyone I encounter, therefore it is the superior morality in every way, especially compared to the morals of a book which gleefully permits so many things I, or almost anyone else, could never find moral. It's why even believers, all but the most insanely literal at least, have long since cherrypicked biblical morals and keep the ones which are mostly similar to what I described. Unfortunately, they do still pick a lot which are harmful to other people simply for the sake of harming them, though, of course, they wrap up their immorality in pages of the bible, so that they can pretend it isn't evil.

Why do I choose the term 'evil'? Because there's no more concise way to describe moral evil than 'harming for harm's sake'.


I do not rely solely on my brain for this information. I rely on outside knowledge, the way people interact with me, and the relatively objective observations of others (such as the science of biology and the study of psychology) which give me the knowledge that my brain is mostly finished in its physiological development and that my mental state is in no way exceedingly out of whack. I could not possibly form a meaningful picture of my mental state if I had nothing to compare it to.

It is the theist which derives entire worldviews from single sources they insist are infallible; you shouldn't make that mistake about me.

Did you use your brain to come up with this conclusion? See the problem?
You use your brain to make these judgments and you've done nothing to show that your brain is fully developed to arrive at any valid conclusion.

I just see the fallacy of begging the question.

I must confess that whenever I read posts such as this elunico13, I feel my face burning with shame because I am a Christian and this is a good example of Christians losing their ability to think independently the minute they believe too much in their religion.

Christians like elunico13 love to use the example of rape and they love to argue that atheists have no moral right to condemn a rapist because an atheist is not guided by some ridiculous notion of divine moral law. But I urge my fellow Christians NOT to use the example of rape because as evilbible.com has shown, there are more than ten separate instances in the Old Testament when God ordered the Israelite soldiers to rape prepubescent girls. Examples include the Midianite girls. In the light of this disgraceful behaviour of God (an act which should condemn God to a lifetime of imprisonment and public flogging - you can flog all three members of the Trinity gang, it makes no difference to me), a Christian has got to be either stupid or insane to bring up the example of rape to innocent atheists.

Remember, my brothers and sisters in this embarrasing faith of ours. We are the ones who should hang our heads in shame every time an atheist mentions morality because our God is totally devoid of morality (if you accept the Bible as the word of God).

We can't talk about rape because God loves raping prepubescent girls, as the OT reminds us on at least ten different places. We can't talk about murder either because if the OT is to be believed, murder and carnage is God's speciality. Our compassionate God has a particular fetish for infanticide. If any Christian is so incredibly ignorant as not to know the source of my charge against God, let me know and I'll let you have the verses galore.

Murder and rape are the two most horrendous acts of immorality and both happen to the favourite pastime of our Lord God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, my dear fellow Christians, if you still cannot use your bloody brains to think and flee while the going is good, you deserve all the contempt that our kind and indulgent atheistic brothers pour on us. We ask for it. Scram, please, before they show us with evidence from our own holy book what kind of a freak of nature, hideous monstrosity, repulsive, filthy and evil ogre we serve as God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then don't condemn the rapist and child molester if that's the life they choose to live. How do you know that violates their conscience? And what obligation do they have to follow an an immaterial "urge" in a materialistic universe? None. It's an arbitrary standard set by padraic.

Unfortunately for the rapist, our laws are set up much differently (and Pad probably wasn't consulted).

Wrong. Many non christians believe the NT is divinely inspired also. You're judging the behavior of another without a standard to do so. If you assert your own its only arbitrary. Man has no authority for setting moral standards. Only your creator.

Man would have no less authority than a ghost, the bonus -when referring to the standards set by men- is that we can at least point to each other in defense of the standard.

Did you use your brain to come up with this conclusion? See the problem?
You use your brain to make these judgments and you've done nothing to show that your brain is fully developed to arrive at any valid conclusion.

I just see the fallacy of begging the question.

Did you use your brain to come to your conclusion? Rhetorical.......lol.

To elaborate upon your notions of non-christians that believe the bible is divinely inspired, have you ever taken a look at how these non-christians fantasies differ from your own? What would be the biggest difference between your own assessment of the bible and theirs? In your estimation of course. Specifically, are there any significant differences in each camps views on morality? What that comment had to do with anything anyone had said to you eludes me, but I think it leads to more interesting discussion than letting it hang might.