What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

To be fair, your thread title is "What IS good, and how do we determine it?" Given that "we" is the plural first-person, your views on the matter are certainly open to discussion.

I mean, I get it, you're uncomfortable discussing the supernatural origins of your morality, because that's a pretty hard sell. I wouldn't want to subject such fragile arguments to questioning either, if I held them.  But that doesn't mean you get a pass. If you're not going to answer questions put to you, you're not going to be pulling your weight in this discussion.

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!"

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morality is something that is actually a reality rather than just a subjective thought or idea that can change from person to person.

Where does it exist? What does it look like? How do humans access this objective existence?

Simply saying something doesn't make it true. You'll need to demonstrate your claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

You question has been asked many times, your objections have been heard many times.  Residual hostility, most likely (and that's ignoring that a significant portion of it may just be -perceptual-). Going down this "hostile atheists" road is, also..something that's been done before......but so what if the audience is hostile...are they wrong?

[Huggy Bear]

This is from Leviticus 21:9

9'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire

. 

Let me get this straight. Christians believe that what is good and evil doesn't change. The verse is a command from the bible god. A girl, probably young, would be burned to death for having sex. So, why don't Christians advocate burning sexually active women now?

Nothings changed, except for the fact that Jesus died and paid the penalty for sin, and therefore we exist by the grace of God.
Grace supersedes the law.
Think of Grace as a presidential pardon that exempts you from having to pay any penalty of breaking the law

Deuteronomy 13

12 “When you begin living in the towns the Lord your God is giving you, you may hear 13 that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14 In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15 you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16 Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17 Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors.

1 Samuel 15

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

We would be shocked today if soldiers went into an enemy city and killed women, children, babies and animals. It is senseless slaughter. The early Hebrews sound shockingly similar to ISIS.  So, do the morals that the Christian god supposedly created remain the same or not?

I like how you guys always try to compare ancient civilizations with your modern world view.

The Amalekites sealed their doom by attacking God's chosen people. If they had befriended the Hebrews, then they would have been blessed, but instead they attacked the Hebrews and were cursed.

"And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." - Genesis 12:2-3

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea - Matthew 18:6
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek

Conflicts with Israel

The Amalekites were "the first one of the nations" to launch an unprovoked attack [3] on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. As a consequence, YHVH decreed ultimate extinction for the Amalekites (Num. 24:20; Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-19). A year later, when the Israelites attempted to enter the Promised Land contrary to the word of YHVH, they were repulsed by the Amalekites (Num. 14:41-45). Twice during the days of the Judges these adversaries shared in assaulting Israel in the days of Eglon king of Moab (Judg. 3:12, 13). Again, with the Midianites and Easterners, they pillaged the land of Israel seven years before Gideon and his 300 men dealt them a smashing defeat (Judg. 6:1-3, 33; 7:12; 10:12). Because of this persistent hatred, during the period of the kings, YHVH ‘called to account’ the Amalekites, commanding that King Saul strike them down, which he did “from Havilah as far as Shur, which is in front of Egypt.” However, Saul, overstepping the order of YHVH, spared the kingly Agag of Amalek. "God was not mocked", for “Samuel went hacking Agag to pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal.” (1 Sam. 15:2-33) Some of King David’s raids included Amalekite villages, and when they in return attacked Ziklag and carried off David’s wives and goods, he and 400 men overtook them, recovering all that had been stolen (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1-20).[3] During the reign of Hezekiah, some of the tribe of Simeon annihilated the remnant of the Amalekites (1 Chr. 4:42, 43).[10]

A modern example would be the current situation between Palestine and Israel. There will never be a peaceful resolution between the two, unless one side completely destroys the other.

Little philistines grow up to be big philistines, and the cycle will continue in perpetuity unless one side is wiped out. The Philistines have been a thorn in the side of Israel since biblical times, so in hindsight, knowing what you know now, should Israel have wiped out the Philistines back when they had the chance, or no?

[Catholic_Lady]

What happened, why did the morality of the divine change?  Why was this correction required?  All of those people acting with divine moral righteousness, extracting eye for an eye justice, where they somehow transformed into immoral people because of this later correction?  Was this change in -their- status as moral actors retroactive?

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.

[Silver]

That's the problem, don't you think?

Logically, society progresses and changes.  If god doesn't, that means he's myth.

[The Grand Nudger]

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:

[Catholic_Lady]

I posted that earlier in the thread but think it may have gotten lost in the discussion.

Did Jesus himself not ignore his own turning the cheek rule?

He got mad and overturned tables.

Do you know why?

He was human.
 
Pure and simple.   

Humans are not meant to be perfect.  We are not meant to reach for these absolutely ridiculously retarded ideals religious people impose based on a book that is perfectly imperfect.

Just to distinguish the difference here, He overturned tables because he was defending his Father. Note that when he himself was being attacked, he never objected to it or hit anyone back.

I agree humans are not perfect, but I do not see anything wrong with striving to be your best and being humble when you've done wrong.

---

Perhaps "god" is allegory?  How do you know which parts are and which parts aren't...I wonder?

Personally I think all of it is. All the stories in the Old Testament.

[Silver]

Personally I think all of it is. All the stories in the Old Testament.

Major facepalm.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't tell that to your parish priests.