If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[The Architect Of Fate]

Me role playing: I don't think stealing is wrong. I believe everything belongs to whoever can get their hands on it.

I don't think you're "role playing," more likely looking for an out that let's you do whatever the fuck you want, but if you are...

You still live in a society where stealing is both morally and legally wrong. If it were just for personal gain and you're caught, depending on what you stole, you may get yelled at, fined, even jailed or imprisoned. This is true with or without a decider, with or without gawds.

Remember, it’s only considered bad when his magical invisible sky watcher decides it’s so and threatens to send you to a pit of fire for it, none of which explains why it’s good or right. But you'll be punished anyway so that's objective .....

[Ravenshire]

then we can move on to talk about deities.

Why in the ever loving fuck do you think anyone here wants another thread by you full of your dishonest bullshit, but this time about gawds?!?

[Ravenshire]

The Grand Nudger  used no flawed logic or mumbo jumbo. He has provided a basis for objective morality, unlike AngelThMan, and he does not have to concede any nor has he acted in bad faith, unlike AngelThMan. Anyone can simply read through the thread for context.

Which is what? Let's see if you have a brain cell. I expect a retarded response

Willful ignorance on proud display.

[emjay]

As long as there are possible explanations, it refutes the animal suffering objection, because they demonstrate it is not an unsolvable problem. I'm just a human and came up with them. Imagine how much better God can do. Though the Bible does tell us things will be revealed in the afterlife, and some things are only for God to know.

Possible explanations:

A) Animals don't have souls and therefore only have the appearance of consciousness. Some theists believe that animals don't have the same soul as humans because God didn't personally breathe life into animals as He did into Adam and Eve. So in this scenario, animals appear to have experiences but actually don't at all. They are in essence biological entities in motion having no experiences, though equipped with survival mechanisms that give the appearance of consciousness.

B) God has imbued all animals with His own Spirit, so it is He who is experiencing suffering, and not any animals.

C) Animals do have souls, and God has a system for judging them based on their natures and limited intellect. Animals that pass this test will reign in heaven. The Bible does describe animals in heaven.

D) Animals have no way to serve God or prove their love to Him given their limited intelligence, and so their suffering is how they earn their salvation and eternal happiness in heaven

E) Animals have no concept of I or them, or of what’s good or evil, therefore they suffer here but will be in heaven for eternity.

Maybe it's one of these, or maybe it's something else entirely different. But these possibilities prove that God could have a morally sound reason for animal suffering. We just have trust Him.

I feel very sorry for you if you have to sink to this sort of level of clutching at straws to keep your faith alive. You seem to me to be a somewhat 'black and white' thinker, Asperger's perhaps?, like I consider myself to be. If so, there are other approaches available that deal with the sense of uncertainty and unfairness in life... mainly Buddhism and Stoicism... in terms of 'covering all bases', in a reductionistic sense, they, in my opinion, do a far better job than any belief in an external god could do. They are about learning to accept whatever you face, without any reliance on something external, by mastering your mind alone. Long journey, yes, but in my opinion a far more reliable approach than relying on/trusting anything external like the notion of a god, especially an untrustworthy god, like my view of the god you worship. Where Buddhism is concerned (or anywhere else), I don't believe in its supernatural claims, but that is not required in order to benefit from it... i.e. supernatural beliefs or not, it teaches you how better to deal with uncertainty, loss, suffering etc. So just a suggestion of something you could look into, if it's all about dotting your i's and crossing your t's in a reductionistic sense.

[Ravenshire]

Another word salad. No idea what any of that means.

No one here is surprised when you fail to understand anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

There’s no “for you” in an objective morality.  That’s the whole point.  If objective morality exists then it exists with or without a god.  With or without our assent.  If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t exist for you me gods or house cats.

I'll take it to mean you can't come up with an objective standard for morality as an atheist. So I'll move on.

I've heard the argument that even if God exists, his morality would be objective. I think it was Alex O'Connor who first offered it, and since then it's gained a lot of traction. But that's giving God human limitations. In this scenario, God is imperfect and has human flaws, and therefore his morality is just an opinion. The thing is that the God I believe in is perfectly Holy and perfectly moral. He is infinitely moral. He in fact created morality, and is the highest possible expert on the topic. I agree that if God doesn't posses all those qualities, his morality is imperfect and therefore subjective. Only if a perfectly moral God exists can there be a perfect moral ground. And that's the God I believe in, not the lesser God.

There are many possible objective moral standards. I’ve given you two in thread. At any rate, if a god existed, and if that god was an objectively moral god, it could only be so by meeting those standards independent of itself to which the term explicitly and exclusively refers.

You might not think that there is such a thing…but that’s you telling me that, in your theism, objective morality can’t exist. Has nothing to do with atheism.

As far as objective morality goes, there’s no requirement of perfection in a moral agent, nor would a lack of perfection demonstrate meta ethical subjectivity. Think about it…as long as I always relate my own opinion, wether they’re objectively true or not, I’m being perfectly subjective.

[AngelThMan]

As long as there are possible explanations, it refutes the animal suffering objection, because they demonstrate it is not an unsolvable problem. I'm just a human and came up with them. Imagine how much better God can do. Though the Bible does tell us things will be revealed in the afterlife, and some things are only for God to know.

Possible explanations:

A) Animals don't have souls and therefore only have the appearance of consciousness. Some theists believe that animals don't have the same soul as humans because God didn't personally breathe life into animals as He did into Adam and Eve. So in this scenario, animals appear to have experiences but actually don't at all. They are in essence biological entities in motion having no experiences, though equipped with survival mechanisms that give the appearance of consciousness.

B) God has imbued all animals with His own Spirit, so it is He who is experiencing suffering, and not any animals.

C) Animals do have souls, and God has a system for judging them based on their natures and limited intellect. Animals that pass this test will reign in heaven. The Bible does describe animals in heaven.

D) Animals have no way to serve God or prove their love to Him given their limited intelligence, and so their suffering is how they earn their salvation and eternal happiness in heaven

E) Animals have no concept of I or them, or of what’s good or evil, therefore they suffer here but will be in heaven for eternity.

Maybe it's one of these, or maybe it's something else entirely different. But these possibilities prove that God could have a morally sound reason for animal suffering. We just have trust Him.

I feel very sorry for you if you have to sink to this sort of level of clutching at straws to keep your faith alive. You seem to me to be a somewhat 'black and white' thinker, Asperger's perhaps?, like I consider myself to be. If so, there are other approaches available that deal with the sense of uncertainty and unfairness in life... mainly Buddhism and Stoicism... in terms of 'covering all bases', in a reductionistic sense, they, in my opinion, do a far better job than any belief in an external god could do. They are about learning to accept whatever you face, without any reliance on something external, by mastering your mind alone. Long journey, yes, but in my opinion a far more reliable approach than relying on/trusting anything external like the notion of a god, especially an untrustworthy god, like my view of the god you worship. Where Buddhism is concerned (or anywhere else), I don't believe in its supernatural claims, but that is not required in order to benefit from it... i.e. supernatural beliefs or not, it teaches you how better to deal with uncertainty, loss, suffering etc. So just a suggestion of something you could look into, if it's all about dotting your i's and crossing your t's in a reductionistic sense.

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

[AngelThMan]

I'll take it to mean you can't come up with an objective standard for morality as an atheist. So I'll move on.

I've heard the argument that even if God exists, his morality would be objective. I think it was Alex O'Connor who first offered it, and since then it's gained a lot of traction. But that's giving God human limitations. In this scenario, God is imperfect and has human flaws, and therefore his morality is just an opinion. The thing is that the God I believe in is perfectly Holy and perfectly moral. He is infinitely moral. He in fact created morality, and is the highest possible expert on the topic. I agree that if God doesn't posses all those qualities, his morality is imperfect and therefore subjective. Only if a perfectly moral God exists can there be a perfect moral ground. And that's the God I believe in, not the lesser God.

...if that god was an objectively moral god, it could only be so by meeting those standards independent of itself...

According to who??

[emjay]

I feel very sorry for you if you have to sink to this sort of level of clutching at straws to keep your faith alive. You seem to me to be a somewhat 'black and white' thinker, Asperger's perhaps?, like I consider myself to be. If so, there are other approaches available that deal with the sense of uncertainty and unfairness in life... mainly Buddhism and Stoicism... in terms of 'covering all bases', in a reductionistic sense, they, in my opinion, do a far better job than any belief in an external god could do. They are about learning to accept whatever you face, without any reliance on something external, by mastering your mind alone. Long journey, yes, but in my opinion a far more reliable approach than relying on/trusting anything external like the notion of a god, especially an untrustworthy god, like my view of the god you worship. Where Buddhism is concerned (or anywhere else), I don't believe in its supernatural claims, but that is not required in order to benefit from it... i.e. supernatural beliefs or not, it teaches you how better to deal with uncertainty, loss, suffering etc. So just a suggestion of something you could look into, if it's all about dotting your i's and crossing your t's in a reductionistic sense.

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

Fine. Goodbye.

[The Grand Nudger]

...if that god was an objectively moral god, it could only be so by meeting those standards independent of itself...

According to who??

According to words Angel, lol. That’s what meta ethical objectivity means. It may or may not exist, but if it does….then it is by definition independent of any given x’s opinions, nature, mind, etc.

The meta ethical term for a morality dependent on a given x’s opinions, nature, mind, etc…is subjectivism.