Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

Yeah, I'm familiar /w Steve.  Strangest thing, is that the quality of his non-arguments hasn't improved over these past few years.  You'd sort of expect it to happen by default, but, like the second coming...we're all still waiting.

Oh they are for sure higher quality then most

[JackRussell]

Yeah, I'm familiar /w Steve.  Strangest thing, is that the quality of his non-arguments hasn't improved over these past few years.  You'd sort of expect it to happen by default, but, like the second coming...we're all still waiting.

Oh they are for sure higher quality then most

Yes, but we don't know the life he has lived.

I was raped as a child. I have killed people and they have killed my comrades.

Philosophy is easy when not experienced.

Morality is hard.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perspective, hooah, lol. I suspect that people who have not been party to complicated moral decisions are more likely than those who have to express a simpletons morality. Objective or otherwise. Whether that;s due to life experience or cluelessness in the face of life experience, I wouldn't know. Case by case basis.

[Amarok]

I hear that there is no greater moral teacher then Prof Life

[Astonished]

I hear that there is no greater moral teacher then Prof Life

Prof. Life can mouth-sex a turd. He sure has no compunctions about making some of us go through worse. But yeah, it's often very fucked when someone just can't understand how shitty a situation is when you've been through it and can describe it in agonizing detail, and still can't quite come around to seeing things any differently than they already do in terms of how they feel about it morally.

[Amarok]

I hear that there is no greater moral teacher then Prof Life

Prof. Life can mouth-sex a turd. He sure has no compunctions about making some of us go through worse. But yeah, it's often very fucked when someone just can't understand how shitty a situation is when you've been through it and can describe it in agonizing detail, and still can't quite come around to seeing things any differently than they already do in terms of how they feel about it morally.

I never said he was nice only that he's effective

[SteveII]

1. This just keeps getting worse and worse.  Whether or not a person will change their mind..and whether or not they -can-....are not even remotely the same subject.  God may never change his mind about those children he sent a bear to kill...but could he have?  

2. There we go.  So god -can- change his mind, he just doesn't.  Not at all the mindless amoral automaton.  Bit of a recalcitrant monster, on account of it, though.  Oh well, give and take?  

3.  Just as "moral agent" is an insufficient description of any given human being....nevertheless, either god is capable of good -and- evil or god simply is what it is.  Amoral, same as a rock, a tree, my t-shirt.

Yet again you bring up another interesting point.  You contend that god -could- change his mind..but, knowing the outcomes of this or that, doesn't.  Well, what is it that god refers to in making that timeless decision?  What metrics, what specifics?  What is weighed, today, in full view of eternity, that causes god to decide one way or another on some moral matter?

---

Here, lets use some specific examples.  

Whats good about gods plan (I assume god makes his decisions based upon whether or not they fulfill that plan, primarily).  [4]

What's bad about death? [5]

What's good about salvation? [6]

-Mind you, there's no impetus that you respond on the boards...but when you consider the answers that immediately spring to your own mind, in your own head....just remember what I said about your own moral foundations.

I wasn't going to answer because the way you discuss things with me is obnoxious. However, it seems like other are at least curious as to my answers.

1. My point is I don't think the term is appropriate to an omniscient being. Changing one's mind implies new information being added (whether factual, emotional, further reflection, etc.). That is simply does not apply under the definition of omniscient. 
2. No, that is not what I said. I said God could have chosen otherwise. Not the same thing. It is possible that God could never have created the universe...yet he did.
3. Having a nature consisting of "perfect moral qualities" would prohibit God from doing evil. Since God's actions will illustrate these moral attributes, the actions would be in fact moral. That certainly does not fit the definition of amoral. 

4. It's good because it's God's plan--stemming from his perfect moral qualities. 
5. Physical death itself is neither good nor bad morally speaking. 
6. a. It's better than the alternatives (annihilation or hell) 
   b. A relationship with God is better than no relationship with God (and all that comes with that).

[Foxaèr]

4. It's good because it's God's plan--stemming from his perfect moral qualities. 

4. When god's morals so perfectly mirror that of evil human dictators throughout history, it begs the question of whether theists truly understand the meaning of good.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wasn't going to answer because the way you discuss things with me is obnoxious. However, it seems like other are at least curious as to my answers.

The answers you give are obnoxious.....but at least we have another explanation of why, along with each answer you gave, that you don;t feel like actually answering any question put forward to you.  Not only are you incapable, you feel personally offended when people point this out.

1. My point is I don't think the term is appropriate to an omniscient being. Changing one's mind implies new information being added (whether factual, emotional, further reflection, etc.). That is simply does not apply under the definition of omniscient. 

Add it to the growing pile of tings your "ominpotent" god can't do, I guess, alongside moral agency.  I'm not sure why you think omniscience precludes a change of mind anyway.  

I know exactly what my kids are going to do if I give them cake before dinner..in that respect - I have full knowledge.  I still, sometimes, change my mind and give them cake.  

2. No, that is not what I said. I said God could have chosen otherwise. Not the same thing. It is possible that God could never have created the universe...yet he did.

Why do you think you're correcting me here?  Apparently we agree, that god could change his mind, except when he can't..which is whenever it's convenient to your non-answers - as we see above.  What's the problem?  God -could have- held the drowning hand, never sent that bear to kill those kids.., or executed the firstborn, or commanded those heebs to slaughter the natives, or built the ghostly filing cabinet of hell...yet he did.

3. Having a nature consisting of "perfect moral qualities" would prohibit God from doing evil. Since God's actions will illustrate these moral attributes, the actions would be in fact moral. That certainly does not fit the definition of amoral. 

Then it's "perfect moral qualities" that constrain gods action.  The good is not, thusly, defined by gods nature, gods nature -as- good is defined by those, whatever they are.  What are they, in your opinion, and upon what are they based?  

4. It's good because it's God's plan--stemming from his perfect moral qualities. 

-an arbitrary invocation of morality with the phrase "perfect moral qualities" attached for no apparent reason, all narrative evidence to the contrary..that explains nothing about it's goodness or why whatever those qualities might be -are- the "perfect moral qualities".  

5. Physical death itself is neither good nor bad morally speaking. 

Really, because it seems as though gods plan either includes or doesn;t include death.  Generally speaking..when a human beings plan includes the death of another person...we call that murder.  If death is not a moral matter...why is it the wage of "sin"? Why is rebirth in heaven the reward for faith through grace? Is this all just arbitrary, or is it amoral? I think we both know that theres a system of moral value judgements attached...but you'll be damned if you're going to let so much as a peep slip about that, after so much obvious bullshitting to the contrary.

6. a. It's better than the alternatives (annihilation or hell) 

What's bad about annihilation and hell?  What makes salvation better than either of those?  

   b. A relationship with God is better than no relationship with God (and all that comes with that).

Why?

You keep using these words, these value judgements...but it's clear that you're going out of your way not to mention what you and I both know is the basis for each judgement.  Are you incapable of open conversation, about gods...and morality?  Hows this going to look on your heavenly CV, good or bad...-and why in either case?

[SteveII]

4. It's good because it's God's plan--stemming from his perfect moral qualities. 

4. When god's morals so perfectly mirror that of evil human dictators throughout history, it begs the question of whether theists truly understand the meaning of good.

Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.