Theists, some questions

[Bad Writer]

Stop talking as if you've already proven god to be real. He can't know better than us if he doesn't exist.

[Lion IRC]

Xtians love dodging the ol' "would you kill someone if god commanded you to do so?" question. How do you expect to have an honest conversation if you can't answer a serious question like this? Your failure to answer keeps you looking like a religious schmuck.

God has to exist to order someone to do something.
So there's no question to dodge.

It's like asking a US Marine whether they would obey their Commander in Chief.

If he doesnt exist - no.
If he DOES exist, then YES.

There are plenty of atheists in the military right? I'll bet they follow orders that come from commanders they have never met or seen.

[Bad Writer]

Good to see you have no comprehension of hypothetical thinking. So if I say "If Count Dracula asks you to sacrifice a baby..." then that MUST mean that the old vampire is real.

EDIT: Oh, and that being said, I suggest you get to sacrificing that baby since Draccy wants you to.

[Esquilax]

God says, "Do not lie," or I introspectively assess a situation and decide on my now that I should not lie. Both are moral.

The fallacy still holds.

Then your morality is external from god, and he's just a messenger. Therefore, "Almighty makes right," as you stated earlier, isn't correct: right makes right, and the almighty might, just possibly, share some of those attributes.

Authority is important when it comes to morals. Someone needs to take the objective stance and maintain consistency.

But how is it an objective standard if you proceed to run these objective edicts through your own morality, and decide whether they're right or wrong yourself? I'm not saying you're wrong for doing that, I'm saying that the very idea of an objective moral authority is undermined by the nature of morality as shown in the Euthyphro Dilemma. Especially since we know god commands some things that are morally wrong.

I'm curious what the independent set of morals you are talking about are. This is no longer "subjective" like you mentioned before.

They're based on the fact that we live in a reality, and can reliably predict our response to certain stimuli. For example, one independent moral would be that harming people is bad; we can say this, because in every sense our pain reaction is a negative one. There are exceptions- the shot you give your kids may hurt them temporarily, but they'll be immunized for the future- but as a general rule, "don't cause pain," holds up pretty well.

[Esquilax]

God has to exist to order someone to do something.
So there's no question to dodge.

Right, so if god exists and he told you to kill a baby, would you?

Oh, and before you answer that, is killing a baby objectively immoral?

[Lion IRC]

Good to see you have no comprehension of hypothetical thinking. So if I say "If Count Dracula asks you to sacrifice a baby..." then that MUST mean that the old vampire is real.

Are you OK with the hypothetical idea of hypothetical people hypothetically obeying their hypothetical Commander in Chief if that Commander in Chief tells them that the end justifies the means?

[Bad Writer]

Oh, so you realize that the question posed to you helps us determine your particular level of crazy! Good job!

[Lion IRC]

Oh, so you realize that the question posed to you helps us determine your particular level of crazy! Good job!

People who speak in the third person are unusual.
We might give it a try and see if it suits us and our disposition.

[Bad Writer]

LOL?...

[henryp]

They're based on the fact that we live in a reality, and can reliably predict our response to certain stimuli. For example, one independent moral would be that harming people is bad; we can say this, because in every sense our pain reaction is a negative one. There are exceptions- the shot you give your kids may hurt them temporarily, but they'll be immunized for the future- but as a general rule, "don't cause pain," holds up pretty well.

Creating a morality isn't an issue. It's creating a morality that applies to others.

For example: A ruthless dictator is having your fingernails pulled out. You say "I'm having a negative pain reaction, therefore this is bad!" To which he says, "Odd, I don't feel a thing."

You get around this by speaking as "we" like all humans are on the some big team. But I think history shows that's quite the stretch.