What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Foxaèr]

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.

I was referring to the people in the Old Testament before Christ came.

Yeah, good way of ignoring logic and reason like a true Christian.  That's not a compliment.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

No. God is not allegory. And the allegorical parts were in the Old Testament only. The New Testament and the teachings of Christ are absolutely historically real. ...Well, that is what I believe anyway lol.

---

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

I sincerally apologize if you have felt I was condescending towards you. That was not my intent at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah...so you have a biblical decoder ring? Or, and this is a sad but much more believable contention.. might it be that what you wish to be allegory, is, to you, allegory, and what you wish to believe is factual is, to you, factual. You understand that others put different things on those two lists?

God killing kids, allegory.....eh? Vicarious redemption.....factual. When you're done cutting out all the shit that you, with your own moral sense, found to be horrid or non-factual, allegory by convenience - then we can have a talk about that last nagging bit..lol.

[Foxaèr]

No. God is not allegory. And the allegorical parts were in the Old Testament only. The New Testament and the teachings of Christ are absolutely historically real. ...Well, that is what I believe anyway lol.

What the fuckity-fuck?

Are you truly so retarded?

If God gave birth to Jesus and both combine to make the holy spirit, how are they not the same?  How can you logically ignore the old testament when god there is precisely the same in the new testament?

[robvalue]

You have to be very careful what exactly you mean by "good" and "moral". Do you mean what is beneficial and least harmful to humans and animals? Or do you mean something someone has arbitrarily labelled as good?

If it's the latter, then it means nothing. It may as well be called blue actions and non-blue actions. The bait and switch is that the word "moral" is used with both these meanings at once, in general, by someone arguing for religious morality.

So which is it? I couldn't care less about the second definition. Only the first. So I'll only discuss the first.

The only way there could be "objective morality" is if there are a set of rules in place about what is moral and what is not, which apply to God, and which God can't change. Where did they come from exactly and why should I care what they say? They are again arbitrary. I can't tell if they are actually moral or not unless I use my brain to analyse their effects. If God steps in and sets what they are, then it's subjective to God, so not objective. And again, I don't care what he thinks. His opinion does not make an action beneficial or harmful, just because he says so.

The simple answer is that our morality comes from evolution. We developed as a cooperative species, on the whole. Those who played nice with others fared better so their genes were more widely spread. Like you say, we "just know" some things are wrong. This is one of the big reasons why. We are generally cooperative and empathetic by selection.

I think religion looks for this absolute, objective morality because it can't stand the idea that it could be a matter of opinion to some degree. Well it's too bad, morality is a matter of opinion. It just happens that there are broad areas where everyone, on the whole, tends to agree. Killing people is a bad idea for society. Hurting each other leads to fighting and isn't productive. And so on. But to decide what is and isn't harmful, you need a judge of some sort. Theists would often like that to be God, but instead, it is us. All of us. There is no consensus, but we agree as best we can.

All the bible represents is an attempt to encode the morality of the day (among other agendas). Clearly you don't just accept the morality in the bible, you find reasons to ignore all the things you find horrific. You say the OT can just be ignored when you feel like it because the writers were getting things wrong, or you appeal to allegory. I don't know how God sending in armies to slaughter town after town could possibly be an allegory, nor most of the horrific things he does. Even Jesus advocates for slavery and does not abolish it.

This is my opinion:

If you look deep inside, you will probably see that what you are doing is filtering what the bible says using your own sense of morality. Sure, you can convince yourself of why you are ignoring the vast majority of it, but the real reason I think is that you know it is wrong. So in the end, you just use what is left, which is your own morality. The book has taught you nothing, it's just God, Jesus and Christianity getting the credit for your morality.

[Catholic_Lady]

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

I am sorry you feel that way. I have been on for quite a few hours now and have felt as though I have been thorough about responding to everyone here. I am sorry if I missed you.

I wouldn't call it cherry picking what I accept in the bible. As a Christian, I would define my beliefs by the teachings of Jesus, which in many instances contradicts the depictions of God in the Old Testament. But that is partially why Jesus came... to bring the new covenant and teach us the correct way.

---

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

I changed the color on that post because I was commenting between the other poster's lines. I changed it to make it easier for you guys to see and distinguish my comments from that of the poster I was responding to.

---

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 ?

Well, I don't believe "their god" exists. So naturally, I don't believe in the commands of their god to kill people, etc. And of course, you can apply the same doubts to mine. That's all this is, really. Just having our own beliefs and not believing everything else.

---

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

Hey- let's be nice.  Catholic_Lady has been very respectful in this thread.  At least she asks us questions instead of telling us what we think or believe.

Thank you so much, I appreciate this!

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I don't believe "their god" exists. So naturally, I don't believe in the commands of their god to kill people, etc. And of course, you can apply the same doubts to mine. That's all this is, really. Just having our own beliefs and not believing everything else.

-and in a way, that is all that subjective morality is.  So, now that you understand what subjective morality is, and how it is -not- what you thought it was (that everything is "right")....can you see why there isn't much trouble for an atheist here?

You clearly -do- apply those same doubts to your own god. When god kills the firstborn you think "no, no, god wouldn't do that, that's allegory" - you are not satisfied with the word of god...you've used your own moral sense.
I do the same thing.

[Catholic_Lady]

I have to agree with the Rhythm of my heart.

If god can so easily command the desecration of whole populations, not once, but multiple times, then how can such a being be trusted for determining our well being as a society today, especially considering that he has made no intrusion in times when society is most likely worse than it ever was before.

I agree with you, Kitan. But I don't believe God ever commanded this. This is OT stuff and I have explained how I feel about the OT and how some of these descriptions of God completely contradict Jesus, who I believe is God Himself, made flesh.

[Foxaèr]

Nope, she doesn't get it.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, not mentally ill...it was gods will.  If you imply that others are mentally ill for referring to gods will as justification....I can just as easily imply that -you- are mentally ill for doing the exact same thing.  I guess we're both just lucky that you haven't heard that voice..yet?

If it's our job to determine objective morality, you're failing at it (and it's more than a little bit of doublespeak to say that it's our job to determine objective morality, but not to judge...you've been telling me these guys were wrong quite alot, you know).

You understand me. I was referring to people who are mentally ill, and also to people who believe God commanded them to do horrendous things. I was speaking about them as 2 seperate types of people, not as the same.

---

Whaaa?

?

---

I'm worried that you'll enjoy them less and less as your catholicism unravels itself aside, for example, my anti-theism.

You don't have to worry about that, but thank you for the concern.