What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I understand that you believe that, I don't...and whether or not you believe that the divine morality changed - it is simply not up for discussion that those men believed very deeply in the moral commands of their god...and that the morality of that god as related to us -has changed-.....regardless of how mistaken they may have initially been.  I would not, if I were you, go down that road...because I would only ask you how you know that you are not -those men-.  

The more interesting consideration would be whether or not those men, deeply moved by what they had as much reason to believe were the desires of your god as you do now.....obedient to the words of that god as related to them...were "bad"?  Were they morally wrong?

@Huggy, good for you buddy, go wash yourself in the blood, ghoul. :washes hands:

All I can do is try to do my best with what I know. I'm not saying those folks were evil for believing what they did. They just weren't perfect and didn't have as much information as us "after Christ" people do.

Like I said, I don't believe any of the men in those stories actually existed. At least not in the way they were portrayed.

---

Don't tell that to your parish priests.

There would be absolutely 0 problem with doing so. 

It is perfectly acceptable and common in the Catholic religion to believe that the Old Testament was written allegorically.

[Silver]

All I can do is try to do my best with what I know. I'm not saying those folks were evil for believing what they did. They just weren't perfect and didn't have as much information as us "after Christ" people do.

Like I said, I don't believe any of the men in those stories actually existed. At least not in the way they were portrayed.

We do have as much information as you do.

Most of us, if not all, have read the bible.  Reading it is precisely what made us become atheists.

Reading comprehension is not for everyone, especially not for those who continue to believe that the bible is in any form the true word of god.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is "god" allegory, then?  I already asked this...you seemed to be responding to that question. If those men didn't exist as portrayed you have a huge..gaping problem with the claims of your faith. If this is all allegory.......then your religion is directly equivalent to Dr Suess as far as moral instruction is concerned, just for starters. There's no need for this particular allegory, when another will suffice (and there's no shortage). I could also point to a great many allegororical stories meant to express, communicate, or illuminate some moral proposition held by me or by another which have nothing at all to do with a god.

The little red hen is a favorite of mine.

[Catholic_Lady]

I meant "we" as in humanity. How do you all, as athiests, believe that us humans can determine morality?"

And Parker's Tan, I'm not uncomfortable at all discussing my views. In fact, I'd LOVE to talk to you guys about it if you genuinely wanted to know. But I just feel like the minute I posted that question to you guys, instead of hearing your answers, a lot of you just immediately jumped to asking me questions in return. And maybe I'm wrong, but they didn't feel like questions in the form of genuine curiosity and discussion, they felt like hostile questions. That's why I had to say a few times, "hey guys, just answer my post lol, don't be so distracted by me and what I believe!"

Keep in mind that Christians come in here constantly claiming to just have a couple of "simple questions". Bear in mind that this "how can you be, or know, good when you don't have faith" is  a tired trope that is too often used to condescend to us -- just as Randy has been doing for the last month.

Your refusal to answer cogent questions makes me wonder exactly how deep your thinking on the matter is at all.  You come in here claiming that objective morality exists, but you offer nothing to support that assertion, and you don't answer questions about the moral dimensions of the god who is after all the reason your Bible was written at all. I weigh the opinions I read here carefully based on what I see you post, but if you're not going to answer these questions, I have no metric for assessing the value of your insights, and it is only natural at that point that I should be more guarded.

I am sorry that you have felt like some of us have been condescending towards you. I cannot speak on their behalf, but I hope I don't give off that same vibe.

Parkers, I will answer your questions. What are your questions?

---

Rhythm, like I said. Morality never changed. God never changed. The OT was simply not perfect and not complete. Jesus came partly to show us what God is really like, because we didn't have it perfectly right before that.

God's behavior certainly changed. What of that moral dimension?

 I think I've already answered this by saying I don't believe the stories in the OT actually happened literally as they are written. Meaning, I don't believe things like God telling Moses that he will kill the first born of the Egyptian families. I don't believe any of this "behavior" ever happened.

[The Grand Nudger]

You, you Catholic Girl..have been condescending..lol.  You just haven't gone full retard, yet. 

[Silver]

Eh, she cherry picks what she wants to respond to as much as she cherry picks what she wants to accept in the bible.

[Catholic_Lady]

Agree to disagree about morality being subjective.

And I have talked to Atheists who do not believe morality is subjective, so I guess it just depends on the person.

I'm afraid that sort of agreement simply isn't possible between us.  You can choose to make claims and then balk at further requests for demonstration, but this is not "agreeing to disagree"...this is the shit and run...also been done, many times.  Atheists don;t have to believe anything in particular about morality, nor are they required to know what subjective morality -actually is- anymore than you are.  If you're an example...then we might expect plenty of them to simply be mistaken.

Fair enough...

I did tell you that it had little to do with atheism at the very outset...did I not?  That's the amusing bit, in any case, there's no shortage of options -other- than the commands of a god or the lines of an objective morality.  You're likely to have leveraged one yourself.  I would certainly hope that you're capable of it, since so many of us clearly are.

Things "depending on the person" is a wonderful description both of subjective morality, and why it is subjective, you understand, yeah?

So, what do you think about those pious (but misinformed) worshippers of the past?  Were they immoral when they acted upon their heartfelt convictions regarding the desires and commands of their god?

If they did something that is objectively immoral (like stone an adulterer, for example,) it remained immoral regardless of their beliefs about it. But as for judging whether they were or were not moral people, or whether they did or did not go to heaven, I cannot say for sure, and neither is it my place to do so. I do not know their hearts.

---

What do you mean?

Precisely what I meant.

I am sorry, I did not understand you.

[Silver]

Oh, changing the color of the text somehow makes your stupidity more relevant?

[The Grand Nudger]

But their god commanded this or that?  If you can so easily doubt the morality of the commands of their god, couldn't I apply the same doubt to yours (and couldn't -you-)?   After all.....thats how you've determined whats good, isn't it, the desires and commands of your god, the standard setter to your "objective morality"? Or have you done it some other way...some way that I might be more familiar with, some way that is shared between us ?

[Catholic_Lady]

I am sure a lot of Muslims are pleasing God. But people who kill others are not pleasing God, regardless of their religion.

Your certainties regarding god don't carry much weight with me..but here again, there are those who would disagree.  If a person truly believes that a god, who is good by definition, has ordered them to kill (and isn't that story familiar) or desires the death of some other group or person (yet another story which should be familiar to you)......are they being immoral when they act upon this?

Yes. The objective ACT of killing a person is always immoral. What changes is that person's culpability. Perhaps a person's culpability would be lessened if they were mentally ill or if they were so far gone that they truly believed what they were doing was good.

But I believe it is not our job to determine another person's culpability, since we cannot see what is in their hearts. Our job is simply to determine objective morality, and leave the judging of that person's soul to God's mercy.