Why Secular Morality is Superior

[genkaus]

Then don't condemn the rapist and child molester if that's the life they choose to live.

Wrong. They should be condemned because the life they choose to live is preventing others from living the life of their choice.

And what obligation do they have to follow an an immaterial "urge" in a materialistic universe?

The obligation imposed by the fact that they choose to be a part of the society.

Wrong. Many non christians believe the NT is divinely inspired also.

Like who?

You're judging the behavior of another without a standard to do so.

A judgment without standard would be impossible.

If you assert your own its only arbitrary.

You keep using that word....

Man has no authority for setting moral standards.

Why not?

Only your creator.

Why?

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.

Well, maybe your brain isn't, but the rest of us.....

The fact that the conclusions we come to actually work in the real world means that we are capable of arriving at valid conclusions.

[elunico13]

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 wouldn't mind some assistance in understanding this oft repeated non-sequitur (and appeal to consequences, to boot) by Christians that "not consciously created" = "life is meaningless and there is no basis for any kind of morality".

While you're at it, explain to me how if we were consciously created that this god can do with us as it wills, make up any set of rules and magically these whims are transmuted into "objective standards"

How does one conclusion follow at all from the other assumption. If it turned out that we are a fortunate by product of the universe, how does that make us any less conscious, any less able to think or feel, and therefore any less worthy of compassion from our fellow conscious beings?

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality. The best any atheist can give is a single man's opinion or a group of men's opinion on what is good and what is evil. It's arbitrary. Anyone or group of people can come up with their own morality w/o considering yours.. It is inconsistant of the atheist to think that humanity should adhere to some universal code of behavior. Why would a material world feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?

Where do you get compassion from in a material only world? It is very arbitrary of the atheist to choose some immaterial "urges" like conscience or compassion, laws of logic or immaterial "oughts" for morality and reject the immaterial God that makes these intelligible.

If, on the other hand, we were created by a god, how is that god's opinions and evaluations any less subjective than those of any other beings. Christians like to sneak in "outsider" into the definition of objectivity despite the fact that (1) a personal god who desires our constant adoration and affections is hardly a passionless outside observer and (2) even if this were so, the term "outsider" appears in no definition of "objective" that I'm aware of. Additionally, how, just by creating us, can that god be absolved from any moral responsibility. We certainly don't treat human parents this way, and paternity is often used as a metaphor by Christians to describe our relationship with an alleged celestial father.

Man was made in the biblical God's likeness. We rejct him and so there are consequences to that. It makes sense that we would be held accountable to him. The truth of it isn't subject to your belief nor your understanding. If you reject that then don't impose any immaterial "oughts" or codes of behavior or laws of logic on yourself or anyone else. Be consistant and deal with the material world only.



You say God is absolved by any moral responsibility, but you have no standard to judge this by. You can't claim to know moral responsibiltity unless you know what moral is.

And while I'm asking Christians to explain their reasoning, let's talk about that appeal to consequences (also known as "wishful thinking") that often seems to crop up in their rhetoric when morality is discussed. This whine that "if we're just a bunch of chemicals (or goo or whatever their latest inflammatory-yet-meaningless strawman metaphor for abiogenesis may be) then we have no basis for morality" smacks of the fallacious reasoning "I don't want to believe this because I think that would be bad and therefore I'm going to think it's not true".

Mere opinion is not a basis for morality. Richard dawkins even said that there is no clear line to be drawn between man and animal. Why then can't we act like them too? Why are you even trying to reason with me if this is how I supposedly evovled? You should see it as agenda vs. agenda. But then the problem of arbitrarly choosing one immaterial concept over another arises.

Well, get a grip you whiner. Reality doesn't care what you wish to be true. Reality simply is whatever it is and, as a grown up, you need to face it on those terms instead of what you wish were true.

Notice how whining is exactly what you're doing here.

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.

Self aware, think, feel, compassion? So these immaterial urges you feel compelled to follow? Lots of inconsistancy throughout your entire post.

[Whateverist]

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.

What is this "condemning" you are so fond of? You go ahead and spout self-righteous vitriol. I'd rather do something about it. Let's get the guy arrested for his asocial behavior. If he can't think of a reason not to rape women, we'll just put him in a place where he can find out how well he likes it. There are objective reasons to avoid asocial behaviors even for those with little or poor moral sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Who thinks we're time, matter, and chance? Even so, you'll have to explain why these things don't account for morality.

The best any atheist can give is a single man's opinion or a group of men's opinion on what is good and what is evil.

Well, that's probably not the best that any atheist can do, but suppose it were, what do you think your religious beliefs are if not the bolded bit above? I know..I know, something about a ghost putting ideas into peoples heads, but until you can fork over the ghost I'm afraid that it's just you (and yours) making these proclamations of what is or is not moral.

It's arbitrary.

See the above, and explain how the commands of a god would be something other than arbitrary, if you have the time.

Anyone or group of people can come up with their own morality w/o considering yours..

They do, but the second bit is just a tad off. When two conflicting moralities come into contact with each other they are all but forced to consider their similarities and differences (and , in many cases, whether or not they can co-exist with each other from that point on- we've had middling to terrible success in this regard until recently).

It is inconsistant of the atheist to think that humanity should adhere to some universal code of behavior.

Why, you think that humanity should adhere to a universal moral code, do you not? You are unable to explain to me why this particular universal code doesn't fall to the same criticisms you offer for "the atheists" position (wtf you think that is). I just don't believe in any gods, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a uniform and well reasoned morality applied the world over (I'm easy too, I;d like to allow for just a little bit of irrationality - we're human after all-). How this is inconsistent with my not believing in a god is beyond me - the two have jack shit to do with one another-. Please try to remember this. God has nothing to do with anything that I ponder over. When I think about morality -god is absent from consideration-. When I think about fishing - god is absent-. When I think about scratching my ass -still no god involved-. It would be difficult to be inconsistent with a non-issue.

Why would a material world feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?

This question is strange...coming from a christian......

Where do you get compassion from in a material only world?

Same place you do, I was born with it (right here, in the material world.....same as yourself).

It is very arbitrary of the atheist to choose some immaterial "urges" like conscience or compassion, laws of logic or immaterial "oughts" for morality and reject the immaterial God that makes these intelligible.

Except that A; your god does no such thing - and B: these things you mentioned have very material representations and benefits (which, for me, is why I like to argue for them).

Man was made in the biblical God's likeness.

You got that one just a wee bit reversed, but no worries.

We rejct him and so there are consequences to that.

Absolutely, consequences like increased prosperity and decreased violence.

It makes sense that we would be held accountable to him.

To whom does this make sense, and please don't tell me that it does, show me that it does. You won't get past the first step. We cannot be held accountable for anything to a creature that does not exist. End of.

The truth of it isn't subject to your belief nor your understanding.

Mirror mirror, on the wall....

If you reject that then don't impose any immaterial "oughts" or codes of behavior or laws of logic on yourself or anyone else. Be consistant and deal with the material world only.

So, supposing there were no eye in the sky...you can see no reason that we might want to issue moral proclamations? No god - rape is a go. No god - murder is a go. No god - theft is a go. I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable with the knowledge that you may actually believe this...and that there are people who would agree with you......

---

Some of yall might want to take special note of this next time I get into one of my gun ownership rants. This is a good argument for arming yourself to the fucking teeth.

---

Mere opinion is not a basis for morality. Richard dawkins even said that there is no clear line to be drawn between man and animal. Why then can't we act like them too?

We do, but simply being an animal doesn't mean you have to do some specific thing. You see many giraffes grouping up into prides and hunting water buffalo? No, you do not. Human animals have their own sets of behavior, just like all of the rest, and this whole "morality" bit is one of those things. Even in this limited group of animals, some don't exhibit this behavior (either in proclamation or adherence) - so we sequester them (specifically in the case of non-adherence), presumably so that they don't interfere with those that do.

Why are you even trying to reason with me if this is how I supposedly evovled? You should see it as agenda vs. agenda. But then the problem of arbitrarly choosing one immaterial concept over another arises.

Reason being a wonderful tool made possible by that wonderfully evolved brain of yours. You know, common behavior of the human animal - leveraging the grey matter.

Self aware, think, feel, compassion? So these immaterial urges you feel compelled to follow? Lots of inconsistancy throughout your entire post.

Meh, you assume that they are immaterial, they may not be. Supposing they were, if they were contingent on the material..your criticisms would mean precisely what?

[DeistPaladin]

Oh, I get it. You're one of those presuppositionalists, all the rage now with apologists since all their other arguments have been thoroughly trashed.

Click here for my thread dedicated to cataloging all the logical fallacies inherent to this line of thinking.

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Non-sequitur (which was my point in the post you're responding to). If we evolved by "chance" (in reality, natural selection) that has no relevance to how we should treat one another.

Hint: It isn't HOW we got here. It's that we ARE here.

The best any atheist can give is a single man's opinion or a group of men's opinion on what is good and what is evil.

We've done far better than that (see the OP) but I tire or repeating myself.

Where do you get compassion from in a material only world? It is very arbitrary of the atheist to choose some immaterial "urges" like conscience or compassion, laws of logic or immaterial "oughts" for morality and reject the immaterial God that makes these intelligible.

Conscience, compassion and other urges aren't immaterial. DNA is material. Hormones are material. Synaptic reactions in the brain are material. And if it turns out there is such a thing as a "soul", it clearly works through the brain and that too is material. And what would this "soul" be made of? If it really exists, science will one day understand it and thus, it too will become "material".

You know what they call the "supernatural" when it's proven real?

"Natural".

As for the "laws of logic", these are not things but descriptions for how the universe works. You're getting the cart before the horse here. It's as if a puddle of water were to argue what divine agency created the hole "so perfectly shaped" for it to fit in. This hypothetical puddle of water doesn't realize that it shaped to fit the hole, not the other way around. In a similar way, the "laws of logic" are just descriptions of what is; it is not that what is conformed itself to them.

Man was made in the biblical God's likeness. We rejct him and so there are consequences to that.

Children are made in the likeness of their parents via DNA. Deadbeat or abusive parents still do not have unlimited power to do as they will with their children.

The truth of it isn't subject to your belief nor your understanding.

Logical fallacy: bare assertion.

Mere opinion is not a basis for morality.

I have offered more than mere opinion. As I've repeatedly said, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are backed up with facts and logical arguments.

Richard dawkins even said that there is no clear line to be drawn between man and animal. Why then can't we act like them too?

We are part of the animal kingdom (we're not plants, fungus or microscopic organisms). We are also rational beings with more evolved brains. Hence the deist philosophy that we are "rational animals". Clearly, some employ reason better than others.

Why are you even trying to reason with me

Good question. Oh, sorry, you weren't finished...

if this is how I supposedly evovled?

And we're back to your obsession over evolution and how that somehow means nihilism to you.

Notice how whining is exactly what you're doing here.

Well, I guess we all have our own definitions of that term. I use it to mean refusing to deal with reality or take any action but rather sitting there wishing it were different. I stand by my accusation.

Self aware, think, feel, compassion? So these immaterial urges you feel compelled to follow? Lots of inconsistancy throughout your entire post.

Only because you are confused on what "immaterial" means (just like how you're confused about the word "objective").

[DeistPaladin]

So, supposing there were no eye in the sky...you can see no reason that we might want to issue moral proclamations? No god - rape is a go. No god - murder is a go. No god - theft is a go. I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable with the knowledge that you may actually believe this...and that there are people who would agree with you......

I don't believe for a minute that they really believe that. I think the moral argument is sophistry designed to provide a rationalization for the belief they already have.

How many ex-Christians do you know in your local atheist community? OK, now of those, how many of them went on a crime spree after their deconversion?

Further evidence that morality has no basis in religion.

[elunico13]

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.

What is this "condemning" you are so fond of? You go ahead and spout self-righteous vitriol. I'd rather do something about it. Let's get the guy arrested for his asocial behavior. If he can't think of a reason not to rape women, we'll just put him in a place where he can find out how well he likes it. There are objective reasons to avoid asocial behaviors even for those with little or poor moral sense.

YEAH! lets go get 'em!

[Whateverist]

What is this "condemning" you are so fond of? You go ahead and spout self-righteous vitriol. I'd rather do something about it. Let's get the guy arrested for his asocial behavior. If he can't think of a reason not to rape women, we'll just put him in a place where he can find out how well he likes it. There are objective reasons to avoid asocial behaviors even for those with little or poor moral sense.

YEAH! lets go get 'em!

That was easier than I thought it would be. For the record I have no problem with your cultivating your own moral sense or comparing what you come up with to that which other deliberately 'good' people think. Have fun. It's your life. If you want to organize and compete in a sainthood olympics, go for it! You won't be hurting anyone and that's all I ask.

Just don't worry about identifying 'the' objectively best moral system of all time for all people everywhere. Most of us don't really care. We're just looking for an acceptable range of non-harmful behavior. How you pleasure yourself is your business.

[Ryantology]

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 see you continuing to dodge the point, which is not the basis upon which I find murder, slavery, rape, torture et. al. immoral. The question I'm asking you has nothing to do with my own morality. It has to do with why you find these behaviors immoral when your infallible, allegedly objective source of morality permits and encourages these acts.

I can only draw from your refusal to address this point the conclusion that you do find murder, slavery, rape, torture et. al. acceptable and moral.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

There's so much stupid in these posts, I have trouble keeping up with all of it.

OK, so are we going full blown solipsism here? You can't be sure of anything so why bother?

If you're doubting whether or not your brain is reliable, how are you relying on your faith in your god, which you learned and can more-or-less process via your brain? Not only does this not get you to higher ground, logically, but you have more complications to account for than I do. I must account for why I feel my brain is accurately assessing reality (which, as Genkaus has pointed out, I see no reason to doubt my sanity). You must account for that and why you feel you both have heard the correct religion and have understood it correctly, through the very same brain you claim I can't rely on.

Ah, the stupid, it burns.