Religion is a poor source of morality

[robvalue]

For anyone who thinks morality is objective, please give me some real world concrete examples of exactly what you think this means. Until someone puts their money where their mouth is so to speak, it's all rather up in the air. I literally don't know what people mean when they say morality is objective. Just saying, "I want to be able to say something is definitely more moral than something else" doesn't mean that it's possible. I can objectively say an object has more mass than another object. But any two observers are going to have differing opinions on any particular moral choice. Thus not objective at all. One of them (or both) just announcing they are "more right" is meaningless until both parties have agreed on an actual objective way to measure morality. Both insist it should be their way, of course.

Now, myself and a random theist in a civilised country are very likely to agree on a lot of goals for morality. Where we are going to disagree is on the goal of pleasing God. I place absolutely no importance on that, regardless of whether that God actually exists. So we're never going to agree on morality where this is a factor. Who is "right"? Me, or the theist? I could argue my morality is more grounded in reality, but I still don't claim I'm objectively "right". How can the theist say they are objectively right? Why should I, or any other atheist, care the slightest bit about what apparently pleases God? Especially when the message of how to do this isn't even passed on consistently from theists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yawh. Antitheists have such a lack of nuance. Judeo-Christian moral principles developed by applying reason to revealed truths. The two work together. The problems come when people look only to one apart from the other I.e reason uniformed by revelation or revelation divorced from reason.

[Minimalist]

There is another option, that morality is based on God's nature, not opinion.

Now all you have to do is produce evidence - which does not mean your silly bible - that this 'god' exists.  And that it is YOUR god and not one of the thousands of others which human imagination has created.

We'll wait.

[RoadRunner79]

Roadrunner: The fact that people tend to generally share the same sense of morality is a direct result of evolution and is easily explainable. There's no need to resort to any outside influence.

I would challenge you to show that morality is a result of evolution, I don't think that you can do so,  easily or otherwise.  Not just to tell a story of evolution magic, but to show that it is the cause.  I admit, that we cannot test that morality is objective.  However I would maintain that the majority of people have an innate sense that morality is objective and unchanging.  The majority of philosophers believe in moral realism.  And while some such as Sam Harris admit to objective morality, I find that most who talk of subjective morals, still behave as if morals are objective.  

Something being objective means you can somehow measure it using a certain method, and everyone would get the same results in any particular example, such as measuring mass or velocity. (Let's not cloud the issue with advanced science. Of course there will be user error to some degree as we're not infallible.) To say morality is objective, you need to give a method for measuring it. You also have to explain why that particular way of measuring it is meaningful or useful.

If this is true, then wouldn't logic/reason fall under the same restriction?  You cannot test logic or reason using the scientific method.  Science presupposes logic/reason.  Do you think that there is an objective logic; or is it based on the subject, and someone else's logic which opposes your own is equally valid? 

You seem to be uncomfortable with consequences. If there is only subjective morality, then no one can objectively say they are more moral than anyone else. Correct. That doesn't stop it being true. Simply announcing that there must be a "correct" subjective morality and calling that objective morality is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

Yes to an extent, I think it is a correct assessment to say I'm uncomfortable with moral anti-realism.  I don't think morality is just an opinion, but something real, something to discover, and something to aspire to.  But more so; I don't think that you and others behave as if is subjective.  Which should I believe.... what you say, or what you do?

What we can do, and what we do do is to agree between us in a society on general goals for morality such as maximising life, health, happiness, opportunity, equality, freedom and so on while minimising death, harm, suffering, etc. Once we have agreed those things are important, a sensible framework can be built. It's then possible to compare one set of morals to another, to see which best serves the goals. What we consider important goals is something that evolves over time, as certain things seem more important and others less important.

You say that morality changes over time, and is a result of societal consensus.  So then a moral framework which is the antithesis of what you posted here would be equally valid then correct (it would be equally moral)?  You claimed that evolution is the source of morality (although un-supported).  So wouldn't then wouldn't morality be what best advances the species?

If morality is based on god's nature, it's still subjective to god's nature. It's not objective. We can study the evolution of a particular society's morality, or we can study individuals to see how their own ideas compare to the general consensus. Objective morality is akin to saying, "Look, this is all too complicated. People sort of agree, and I want there to be a best way to behave. Therefor there is a magic standard." Even if there was one, no two people can agree what it is so it would be utterly pointless. What use to anyone is millions of theists all announcing their own interpretation of objective morality? If we're simply going to discuss them and find out what we think is right, then we're dealing with subjective morality again.

In your first sentence here I think you are equivocating the term "subjective".  I could equally say that the property of hardness is subject to an objects composition or any other number of physical laws, but it would be incorrect to say that it is not objective.  I also think that you are confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral) with ontology (what makes it moral) which is what I am discussing.

Plus, you really don't want morality based on god's nature if that God is Yahweh. I assume you've read the bible, the only apparent source we have. By today's civilised standards and goals, he is a psychopathic monster. To say otherwise is to discount the bible, at which point you're just completely making stuff up.

Well that is your subjective opinion, and I suspect is a result of prooftexting and lack of knowledge of scripture.   However you are again not basing your judgement on the subjective standard which you propose.

[Cecelia]

People of one culture tend to have the same morality because parents pass their morality down to their children and morality is more based around society than it is anything else. Consider that morality is quite different between regions. All you have to do is look at the middle east versus western values. You can see that both do not have similar systems of morality. They might share some concepts, though to what degree varies. For example killing someone is wrong by most moral systems. However many systems include exceptions. Some are fine with the death penalty, while others aren't.

We learn our morality from our parents and our peers. That's why morality changes over time. It's like a great big Katamari rolling up what it comes in contact with. It's why Christians two hundred years ago were pro-slavery, but Christians today generally aren't.

And the bible most definitely makes women out to be property, and non-virgin women out to be worthless (A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned). And Yahweh's nature is most definitely psychotic. His nature is to kill. People are acting up? Time to flood the earth. David took a census? the blood of 70,000 men will be all that satisfies him. Harden Pharaoh's heart so he won't let Moses's people go, and then when he doesn't let Moses's people go he takes all the first borns of Egypt. All of this is considered "Righteous" by his nature. He had bears kill 42 youths for them making fun of a prophet's bald head. He killed Lot's wife just for looking back.

[Minimalist]

Right.  Fuck yhwh.  Miserable bastard.

[robvalue]

I'll try and come back and address your post more fully Roadrunner I shouldn't have mentioned the roadrunner tactic as I see you're employing it now, ungh! Only myself to blame there.

But I repeat, have you actually read the bible? Properly read it, front to back? The most common interaction of God with humans, according to his own book, is killing them. The second most common is ordering them to be killed. He displays just about every negative quality you could imagine, I'm happy to provide plenty of quotes about this. He displays virtually no redeeming qualities at all.

Sure, he turns up as Jesus (Jesus wasn't originally God, this was a later addition) for a very brief portion of the book. This is akin to an abusive father saying "there, there" after kicking the shit out of you for 16 years. It's funny how much time Christians spend taking about the NT. Disproportionately so, trying to fade the OT into obscurity. But then, Jesus is even worse than Yahweh. He brings with him Hell, the most evil concept imaginable.

To read all of that, and come out with the opinion that he's a loving, peaceful God is to just totally ignore everything it says and rewrite it in your head. I'm not interpreting anything, I'm reading the words on the page. It's really clear. If you have to "interpret" the words to mean the opposite of what they say, then what's the point of the book in the first place? Why is he such a terrible author? He is either incapable of properly communicating, or else is quite happy for people to draw contradictory conclusions from the book.

[RoadRunner79]

People of one culture tend to have the same morality because parents pass their morality down to their children and morality is more based around society than it is anything else.  

Do you think that these different views of morality are equally valid (one choice among many)? 

I have heard it said, that morality is not objective because it is learned, and has changed over time.  However so has our knowledge of science.  I don't believe that science is not objective, because I can go less developed culture, and get different views and understandings.

---

And the bible most definitely makes women out to be property, and non-virgin women out to be worthless (A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned).  And Yahweh's nature is most definitely psychotic.  His nature is to kill.  People are acting up?  Time to flood the earth.  David took a census?  the blood of 70,000 men will be all that satisfies him.  Harden Pharaoh's heart so he won't let Moses's people go, and then when he doesn't let Moses's people go he takes all the first borns of Egypt.  All of this is considered "Righteous" by his nature.  He had bears kill 42 youths for them making fun of a prophet's bald head.  He killed Lot's wife just for looking back.

I can understand how if all you went by was a list on some anti-Christian site, how you may come to that conclusion.  And I admit that there are that some are difficult if someone doesn't understand God's position, and that it is by his mercy, that judgement is withheld.  Also, because I have read the Bible, I know that many on these lists are taken out of context, and see much poisoning the well tactics being used also, and some which simply show poor reading skills by the author. 

Frankly I loose interest when the story is distorted towards a purpose.  If you read the Bible, you will see some of the things you have described (although perhaps not as described).  You will also see much patience in mercy.  You will see opportunities to change, and the consequences of the failure to heed that warning.  I feel that you are missing much of the story, and only seeing what you wish to see.

---

But I repeat, have you actually read the bible? Properly read it, front to back?

Yes I have.  And I do recommend a full reading before going on to other studies to Christians.  I think that you get a better feel of the overall context that way.

Sure, he turns up as Jesus (Jesus wasn't originally God, this was a later addition) for a very brief portion of the book. This is akin to an abusive father saying "there, there" after kicking the shit out of you for 16 years. It's funny how much time Christians spend taking about the NT. Disproportionately so, trying to fade the OT into obscurity. But then, Jesus is even worse than Yahweh. He brings with him Hell, the most evil concept imaginable.

I see the same mercy, and judgement shown in both the old and new testaments.  The difference is the focus and purpose of the message.  It's the two parts of the same message of the Gospel. 

I'm not interpreting anything, I'm reading the words on the page. It's really clear.

Good, then I will expect an accurate portrayal of the scriptures from you.  I would also expect that we can discuss the context of these as they come up in our discussion.  And we can also dispense with any poisoning the well tactics that sometimes come up in these discussions, and just examine the story as told.

[Cecelia]

---

And the bible most definitely makes women out to be property, and non-virgin women out to be worthless (A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned).  And Yahweh's nature is most definitely psychotic.  His nature is to kill.  People are acting up?  Time to flood the earth.  David took a census?  the blood of 70,000 men will be all that satisfies him.  Harden Pharaoh's heart so he won't let Moses's people go, and then when he doesn't let Moses's people go he takes all the first borns of Egypt.  All of this is considered "Righteous" by his nature.  He had bears kill 42 youths for them making fun of a prophet's bald head.  He killed Lot's wife just for looking back.

I can understand how if all you went by was a list on some anti-Christian site, how you may come to that conclusion.  And I admit that there are that some are difficult if someone doesn't understand God's position, and that it is by his mercy, that judgement is withheld.  Also, because I have read the Bible, I know that many on these lists are taken out of context, and see much poisoning the well tactics being used also, and some which simply show poor reading skills by the author. 

Frankly I loose interest when the story is distorted towards a purpose.  If you read the Bible, you will see some of the things you have described (although perhaps not as described).  You will also see much patience in mercy.  You will see opportunities to change, and the consequences of the failure to heed that warning.  I feel that you are missing much of the story, and only seeing what you wish to see.

---

I don't need to go by a list on some 'anti-christian' website.  These are things that are ACTUALLY in the Bible.  I'm assuming you've actually read it. 

Yahweh floods the world, and kills every animal, every man woman and child save for two of each 'kind', and eight people.  How is that out of context?  He killed all of them in the story.  Did he, or did he not? 

After David took a census, Yahweh gave him choices of how he would punish his people.  David refused to choose, so Yahweh decides to go with the plague, and kills 70,000 people and even then he's not even really satisfied.  Yahweh was a big fan of blood sacrifices.  Even in the new testament, Jesus is a blood sacrifice. 

Did he not take all the first borns of Egypt?  Did he not harden Pharaoh's heart?  These things are actually in the bible.  If you've read it, you found them there. 

Did he not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for merely looking back?  Did he not have bears kill 42 youths because they made fun of one of his prophets?

You see mercy and patience because that's what you have been trained to see.  You choose to look past the fact that he killed 50,000 people who looked at the ark.  Does this sound like a just punishment to you?  If so then you might just be a psychopath too. 

If these things weren't in the bible, then you might have a point.  But they are.  They're very clearly in there.  Whatever mercy and patience he supposedly has is negated by the fact that he did these things too. 

"But Jesus!"

You mean when he sacrificed himself to himself so he could forgive mankind?  Why couldn't he forgive them without a sacrifice?  Why did he need a sacrifice at all? If he's god, then surely he can forgive people without a sacrifice of any kind.  Yet we do not see that.  Not when David took the Census.  And not when Jesus sacrificed himself either.  Yahweh reads as a child having a temper tantrum when things do not go his way.

Also I don't think you understand what poisoning the well is.

Poisoning the well is when you present unfavorable information about an opponent in order to discredit their argument.  Poisoning the well is not when you bring up unfavorable information on a subject.  That would kill the purpose of any debate. 

If John and Dave are debating, and John presents unfavorable information about Dave to the audience (relevant or not) then it is poisoning the well.

If John and Dave are debating, and John presents unfavorable information about the subject to the audience, then it is not poisoning the well.

I

[ApeNotKillApe]

According to the Bible, all human suffering is the result of a woman learning.