Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[JackRussell]

1: Why has God given me a defect in my brain?

2: There are evolutionary/genetic and behavioural studies on this, trust me I have read LOADS on this.

3: Brain states and evolution baby. It ain't objective, it's all about wellbeing, and cantankerous primates can disagree, we aren't all alpha-males and I don't feel the need to be right. I just want to be nice and have never seen the evidence for the supernatural, that's your bag.

4: Come to England and drink a warm beer, that might piss you off. But I am a remainer and would offer you a French lager.


But seriously, why could morality not come from human experience? Do you not think we knew that murder was wrong before Sinai? And even if you are right, how does that make your claim different from any other posited god?

I prefer Occam and evidence. Parsimony and libations.

1. I don't believe God was the cause of the defect.
2. Evolutionary?
3. Read the NT. Talk to someone who was changed. Talk to a missionary who ministered in some remote place where God's work is more apparent and needed.
4. Was in England last month. 25th wedding anniversary trip. Portsmouth, Oxford, Harrogate, Lake District. 

I believe that morality is written on the heart of every (normal) human.

Occam was a monk, philosopher and theologian. His razor principle is one applied to scientific inquiry. Investigating God is not scientific in the slightest. 

The fact that there are other religions have no bearing on the question of truth. There are many ways in which Christianity is better evidenced and reasoned than other religions.

And sloppy language doesn't help your game. Hearts facilitate blood circulation. The brain is where the real human shit happens, and it's curious because we all interpret our brain states in slightly different ways.

Hope you had a good time in the UK, and I think I am a normal human that happens to be bi-polar.

I have spoken to people who have changed, in both directions. I have spoken to Muslim converts here in the UK that were previously either secular to Christian. I believe that they have changed, I have no way of assessing the agency behind that change.

If I can'y examine god claims scientifically, which many of your co-religioinists say I can, then why should I bother? The god that exists must know how I can be convinced, yet he has never bothered. And why is he a he? That's a bit telling to me. I quite like the empowerment of women, most religions don't seem to be aboard with that.

Evolution explains diversity and is a fact. I don't care what anybody else believes, but I don't like my kids being lied to.

I can't tell the difference from pious misunderstanding and pious lies. I would rather take Socrates over Messiahs.

[Astonished]

1: Why has God given me a defect in my brain?

2: There are evolutionary/genetic and behavioural studies on this, trust me I have read LOADS on this.

3: Brain states and evolution baby. It ain't objective, it's all about wellbeing, and cantankerous primates can disagree, we aren't all alpha-males and I don't feel the need to be right. I just want to be nice and have never seen the evidence for the supernatural, that's your bag.

4: Come to England and drink a warm beer, that might piss you off. But I am a remainer and would offer you a French lager.


But seriously, why could morality not come from human experience? Do you not think we knew that murder was wrong before Sinai? And even if you are right, how does that make your claim different from any other posited god?

I prefer Occam and evidence. Parsimony and libations.

1. I don't believe God was the cause of the defect.
2. Evolutionary?
3. Read the NT. Talk to someone who was changed. Talk to a missionary who ministered in some remote place where God's work is more apparent and needed.
4. Was in England last month. 25th wedding anniversary trip. Portsmouth, Oxford, Harrogate, Lake District. 

I believe that morality is written on the heart of every (normal) human.

Occam was a monk, philosopher and theologian. His razor principle is one applied to scientific inquiry. Investigating God is not scientific in the slightest. 

The fact that there are other religions have no bearing on the question of truth. There are many ways in which Christianity is better evidenced and reasoned than other religions.

1. Ah, moving the goal posts. Don't see that often when I argue. Almost refreshing. So let's see, what are you doing to differentiate your view of god from others that simultaneously gets you what you want, without rendering god irrelevant and pointless? If this god is not the creator and designer of all things, including mental defects, are you willing to admit you were wrong or lying to cover your ass?

2. Read. A. Fucking. Book. A real one, not that tripe that even your level of reading comprehension can't seem to help you understand. There are different scientific disciplines and different facets within those disciplines, each of which has a perspective from which something can be observed. If I'm looking at something chemically, I see the underlying components and reactions, and if I'm looking at something biologically, I'm looking at what macro-effect that chemical reaction has on a living thing. Two different ways of looking at the same thing. I should not have to explain this to you if you made it through middle school.

3. Emotional appeal, now we're getting into familiar, tired, sad territory. Your religious beliefs are completely, utterly unnecessary for changing someone's life in a positive way and when I see people all over the world suffering because of reasons that are EXCLUSIVELY DUE TO RELIGIOUS FAITH, you will conveniently turn a blind eye. You don't get to have it one way, let alone both ways, buster. You're wrong in every way it's possible to be.

4. If while you're over there, you see a blue police box slowly vanishing, that's more interactive with the world than any concept of god ever proposed. It's a good example of the kind of evidence you might consider presenting since at least that can be observed if only conditionally.

[Amarok]

Christianity is not needed to change bad people . And it can just as easily make good people go bad.

[Astonished]

Christianity is not needed to change bad people . And it can just as easily make good people go bad.

Exactly. It's iffy about how likely it is to get a good result and you run the extreme risk of having it go South in many ways (making a person ignore logic and reality, or defend Yahweh's morality even if they don't act on it). Go the secular route; it gets you what you're looking for with none of the side effects.

[JackRussell]

If morality requires God, he is doing a piss poor job wth many of his most ardent adherents. I fervently wish he was a she.

But then, i cannot be moral because i don't submit.

They cannot be moral because they have a broken moral compass and cannot therefore accurately know God's moral worth.

I have more 'faith' in human intuition than divine absurdity. I take responsibility for my actions and own them, no divine mafiosa required.

[Astonished]

If morality requires God, he is doing a piss poor job wth many of his most ardent adherents. I fervently wish he was a she.

But then, i cannot be moral because i don't submit.

They cannot be moral because they have a broken moral compass and cannot therefore accurately know God's moral worth.

I have more 'faith' in human intuition than divine absurdity. I take responsibility for my actions and own them, no divine mafiosa required.

If the difference is as vast as "Complete submission to god" compared to "Maximize human well being and minimize harm", yeah, pretty irreconcilable. Just look at both of those objectively. Is it even possible for the former to have a shred of the amount of ability to promote well-being as the latter? Regardless what god you're worshiping, it still just sounds like a total recipe for disaster.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it were some concept of divinity that hinged on reducing harm and promoting wellbeing, sure - it would be a superfluous diety in that context, which it is in the context of morality anyway..but hey..it could be done.  It's not for impossibility or incongruency that believers have failed to do so, that's just not the kind of ghost that tickles their god bone. The small minded smiting types get all the groupies nowadays. Hmn, wonder why that might be.

[Astonished]

If it were some concept of divinity that hinged on reducing harm and promoting wellbeing, sure - it would be a superfluous diety in that context, which it is in the context of morality anyway..but hey..it could be done.  It's not for impossibility or incongruency that believers have failed to do so, that's just not the kind of ghost that tickles their god bone.  The small minded smiting types get all the groupies nowadays.  Hmn, wonder why that might be.

But that's not indicated in the axiom whatsoever. It's a complete appeal to authority. Literally substitute anything else in place of god-can anyone honestly expect results that aren't catastrophic? Yet that's what we have in abundance.

[The Grand Nudger]

In what axiom?  The axiom of a hypothetical faith whose god is the god of human wellbeing and reducing harm...whose beliefs have not been described or expounded upon?  Why would it be catastrophic if people worshipped such a god?  It's been less than catastrophic with far shittier gods. Ultimately, it's where gods are heading in the mainstream anyway - with fundy breakaways being reactionary responses to the perception that god ought to be able to beat a bitch every now and again, to hold down some icky other that the adherents themselves don't like. A vocal few long for the good old bad old days.

[Astonished]

In what axiom?  The axiom of a hypothetical faith whose god is the god of human wellbeing and reducing harm...whose beliefs have not been described or expounded upon?  Why would it be catastrophic if people worshipped such a god?  It's been less than catastrophic with far shittier gods.  Ultimately, it's where gods are heading in the mainstream anyway - with fundy breakaways being reactionary responses to the perception that god ought to be able to beat a bitch every now and again, to hold down some icky other that the adherents themselves don't like.  A vocal few long for the good old bad old days.

Because there are no gods, as Bill Maher monologues at the end of Religulous, people sub in their own agendas and say it's god's will, so of course the appeal to THEIR authority is going to be fucking nightmarish. It's only because most people don't have the courage of their fucking stupid convictions that it hasn't completely been catastrophic to blindly follow whatever they perceive as the god's will unquestioningly. It's still an axiom that should earn someone a fucking course of shock therapy for using.