Objective Morality?

[DeistPaladin]

I'm still waiting for some Christian to answer my question as to why love is evil when the body parts are similar.

Having gone through the experiences of falling in love on both sides of the fence, I can assure you that body parts are all that distinguish them from each other.

...OK, the beard was also new.

[5thHorseman]

i'll answer it on behalf of the bigoted theists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OcFHYv3_...re=related

[DeistPaladin]

i'll answer it on behalf of the bigoted theists.
[video]

Actually, that was the strongest argument for anti-gay bigotry I've ever heard.

[Captain Scarlet]

...OK, the beard was also new.

Why didn't you get her to shave DP?

[Mister Agenda]

I still have not heard a solid answer as to why adultery is wrong if you don’t get caught.

Why do you need such a solid answer? Why isn't 'you wouldn't want your spouse to commit adultery, even if you would never know about it' enough? Empathy may not be a cosmic principle, but that and fear are all that keeps us from being assholes. Without those, it doesn't matter how firmly based your moral code is, you won't follow it.

---

Thanks, what a good argument for the soul.

Are you saying this is evidence that these animals have souls, because they have an instinctive reaction to theft, murder, and assault?

No, I'm not and that's the point, they have an instinctual reaction to theft, murder and assault, man has a moral reaction to the same.

Our moral instincts are the beginning of our morality. They account for why we want to be moral. You don't have to teach a child a moral code for it to be aware that there's something unfair about another child getting cake while they go hungry. That instinctive feeling of outrage when someone else arbitrarily gets a benefit that you don't is why we're motivated to come up with a moral system that promotes fairness. Our empathy for others lets us conclude that we shouldn't do to them things we don't like done to us, and our morality is based on that as well.

We have instincts that aren't so conducive to social harmony, and we can observe the undesireable consequences of not restricting them, so we punish those behaviors and expect people to 'control themselves'.

It's a process. We used to think killing was okay, as long as the victim wasn't from our tribe. We used to think slavery was okay, as long as we weren't too cruel. Things that used to be acceptable, we come to realize are wrong: a little over a century ago, the age of consent in the USA averaged 10-12 years old (7 years old in Delaware). We know better now, because we've built on the accumulated moral insights of great thinkers over centuries, and in this case have arrived at the idea that a person should be old enough to understand the consequences of their actions before marrying.

Our moral reaction is not on a different plane than an animal capable of a similar reaction, ours is just more informed and nuanced.

---

Killing is natural to a psychotic killer, they don't choose to be that way, it is unfortunate for them, it is counter productive and their act is not socially acceptable and quit illegal and nothing makes it OK.

It's true that a psychotic killer isn't 'wired right', usually from a combination of predisposition and being severely abused as a child, although there have been cases where a brain injury or tumor led to psychotic homicidal behavior. For the safety of others, they have to be contained.

I'm not following how you equate someone wired to do something that makes you go 'ick' with someone who makes you go 'for the love of mercy, stop stabbing me!'.

---

Just because it may happen with animals doesn't mean it's a natural act. Actually it says that something in nature is messed up, for instance there is nothing productive about it in animals, it produces no offspring thus not moving the genes of a species on down the line, this is against evolution, if this behavior became the norm then the species would die off. Hey maybe this is what happened to the dinos, just kidding but you can see what I mean. I do not know what homosexuals find pleasing in such a relationship, what ever it is it would not be the same for animals they live by instincts and have no moral code.

It may be advantageous to a population for a small percentage to be homosexual...available to protect the young, still bonded to the group, keeping the population from getting out of hand. Evolution doesn't work on individuals, it works on populations. Or it may be a hiccup in prenatal development. We don't know yet. We do know that it's wrong to be cruel to people who aren't harming us.

[Godscreated]

I liked the part when he mentioned "against evolution"... I like it when people know little of natural selection. I find great amusement in it, but also great frustration.

Homosexuality would not be a natural selection, this would bring extinction to a species.

---

Yes it is a moral issue, and no it's not the greatest moral issue with me or most christians I know. The greatest moral issue for christians is absolute morality.

Despite the fact I have no idea what you mean by saying "The greatest moral issue for christians is absolute morality". Why dont you answer the points I rasied in a response representing the positive case for Theism. Instead you ignore them and create a red herring on homosexuality. You have merely represented your subjective view on that issue and it probably says more about you than any homosexual.

I would not expect you to understand, it's a God thing.

[Mister Agenda]

I liked the part when he mentioned "against evolution"... I like it when people know little of natural selection. I find great amusement in it, but also great frustration.

Homosexuality would not be a natural selection, this would bring extinction to a species.

---

How much homosexuality would cause a species to go extinct? 20%? 50%? 90%?

It depends on the species doesn't it? With desert mole rats, a colony typically consists of one breeding female, one to three breeding males, and about 70 or so sterile workers. So here is a mammal species that gets along fine with less than 6% of the population breeding.

As I pointed out before, natural selection acts on populations, not individuals, and as long as sufficient offspring are born to maintain the population, there's a lot of variation in what percentage of the adults have to actually breed. It's quite possible for a 10% homosexuality rate to be optimal for a population, perhaps if the 'gay uncle' hypothesis is correct (most of the uncle's genes are carried through nieces and nephews, more resources are available for them if he doesn't have children of his own), and selection would bring it back down if it got higher than 10%...and bring it back up if it got lower than 10%.

Homosexuality could be associated with a beneficial gene or gene-complex that offsets lowered reproduction: having one sickle cell anemia gene gives you protection from malaria, having two gives you protection from malaria and also gives you sickle cell anemia. Where there's malaria, you will find this gene is selected for, even though it increases the risk of sickle cell anemia.

AND...homosexuals can have children. Historically, it has probably been the norm for a homosexual man to marry and have children, because having children is so important in many subsistence cultures. Maybe homosexuals haven't been selected against because they've been keeping up with the straights when it comes to breeding, and now that it is more acceptable to be exclusively homosexual, if there is a strong genetic component to being gay, it MAY start being selected against.

I doubt it's that simple, though. The strongest known predictor of sexual orientation in males is fraternal birth order. The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay if you're a man. Of course 'strongest known predictor' is weak praise when it still only accounts for about 15% of homosexual prevalence in men.

For my part, I think it is probably a number of factors, probably including natal and epigenetic effects, although I doubt there's actually a homosexuality gene cluster.

But carry on thinking you know enough about biology to determine what is natural.

[IATIA]

I would not expect you to understand, it's a God thing.

Which then begs the question of your presence here on this board. I doubt strongly that you will ever give up your love for your sky-daddy, let alone question his morals and we have no intention of being adopted by your imaginary friend.

So, if you are not going to explain the "god thing", then what exactly is your purpose here? What do you hope to gain? The point of this forum is to enhance understanding, get new ideas, philosophy, information, etc., so that we can continue to make our own educated free thought choices. Unless, perhaps, you think your little comments within your posts (subtle preaching) might have an effect.

If no one was truly interested in what you had to say, you would be on everyone's ignore list and no one would be responding (well, maybe a few that get a kick out of chewing up theists and tossing them around a bit). That does not mean someone will not laugh in your face, but, hey, this is an Atheist forum.

---

It depends on the species doesn't it?

And bees have no fertile offspring until they decide a few are needed to propagate the species.

---

No, I'm not and that's the point, they have an instinctual reaction to theft, murder and assault, man has a moral reaction to the same.

Say what! Man is an animal. Even if you want to play the 'god thing' and 'soul thing', man is still subject to the genes of the species and this has nothing to do with morality, only survival. For instance, if a species kills itself off, they would not be around.

[Statler Waldorf]

Intent does properly have a place in discussions of morality. This doesn't constitute "thought crime" since thoughts were accompanied by corresponding action.

Nope, you can have the same action and have two completely different intentions, intent is purely thought, so punishing it would be a form of thought crime. Punishing thought crimes is completely fine in my worldview, but I’d be interested to see you reconcile it with yours.

It would be morally wrong to drive a car recklessly, in ways that wantonly disregard safety.

Why? How does that differ from the person who runs over the child who runs out in front of their car? Both behaviors risked causing harm to others. If I don’t drive, I will never run someone over with a car, am I acting more morally pure in your eyes than someone who drives and runs the risk of running someone over someday?

Ever heard of lie by omission? And if he pledged to be faithful or fidelity was an understood agreement between the two, then breaking that contract is deceptive.

That just begs the question though, why is it morally wrong to lie about something in a secular world? You seem to be just passing the water from one leaky bucket to the next.

You struggle with problems that only exist in your head. Attempted crimes are still crimes, even if they weren't successfully carried out, and can easily be prosecuted as such.

Who said we were talking about attempted crimes? We are talking about someone cheating and never getting caught.

Nice. Another non sequitur. You really do run through the list of fallacies quickly. A free thinker is one who thinks freely, as opposed to getting your answers from scriptures or institutions. It does not follow that a free thinker is necessarily rational.

So you are admitting you are an irrational free thinker? Nice. I’d rather be a rational non-free-thinker than an irrational free-thinker. Fortunately for me though I am both a rational thinker and a free thinker.

In any event, we've rode this merry-go-round as many times as I care to. The "problem" that you see is an artificial one, just as artificial as your "GodWillsIt" solution. The problem and the validity of the solution only exist in your head. No matter how many times you bring up this issue, this will continue to be my answer. Let's just agree to disagree and let the reader decide which one of us is making a better case.

That sounds fair to me, as long as you allow me to use this, “the problem is only in your head” defense next time someone tries to point out a problem with my reasoning. Thanks! Don’t worry, I’ll give you credit for the approach.

Every theist always thinks that the god they just so happen to have believed in all along is the only one out there. Every theist can pick apart someone else's religion. That's why we say that we are all atheists. It's just that some suspend their atheism and fail to apply that critical thinking to their own religion.

You’re not really trying to use that “one less god” canard are you?

Prove it.

You already did for me when you accepted the truth of assumptions that you could not give account for but I could.

---

Condemned by your own words. Here for all to see is xtian morality. The greatest moral issue you see of your day is homosexuality (which isn't a moral issue). And you have no repsonse to the moral questions I have posed, which are of far greater importance. Of course homosexuality is part of nature, it may be abhorrent to you and that is your own subjective view, but that does not make it objecvtively wrong. The individual has the right to pursue their own life and maximise their own self worth, desires, aspirations as long as they do not adveresly impact other. They should be free to pursue this without being vilified and persecuted by narrow minded views that gave birth to the Inquistionan and Witch Trials. Or are you advocating the return to these xtian practices as well? Pathetic.

---

How is homosexuality not a moral issue?

And then naturalism ends up with the same horns: ie either morality is subjective, or it is intrinsic and humans have nothing to do with it. In both cases it can be argued that naturalism is ultimately defeated. But in naturalism, we do have a third option. We do have facts to rely on, facts that are beyond our choice and that are objectively true about reality. This is not a subjective proposition, or an intrinsic one, but rather knowledge gained by observation and reasoning based on them. The theist has no viable third option and lives in a cartoon universe that cannot be relied upon given gods arbitrary whims. Only a self contained block universe can account for induction, despite the protests of the xtian presuppositionalists.

You have presented a false third option. If these truths are learned through observation and reason then they are still subjective since humans observe and interpret what they observe differently. Humans do not all reason the same either. Saying something is wrong because God wills it is not arbitrary though, so the dilemma does not really apply to the Christian God.

Firstly thank you for grasping the nettle from the xtian standpoint and not avoiding the issue. However, I refer you to Jesus (assuming he existed). He was a Jew: who came to fulfill the law, fully condoned the teachings of the OT, did not expunge any of it and where Genocide is explicitly ordered by 'the father' part of the same trinity.

You must have missed the part where Jesus set up the New Convenient which supersedes the Mosaic Covenant.

I refer you to xtian concepts of original sin (well documented). According to your theology we are descendents of sinners and we are guilty because of their ‘crimes’.

Ok, but you’ll notice that I said it is wrong for people to hold other people accountable for the crimes of their ancestors. These verses all speak of God holding people accountable for the crimes of their representatives or descendents, two different matters.

Well that speaks for itself.

No it doesn’t, demonstrate how that would be morally wrong.

Apparently Jesus. It is the xtian proposition. As long as I come to believe in salvation through Jesus at any time in my mortal life, as long as it is sincere, I can receive my reward in heaven. Now this apprantly applies to all, I could have rendered total carnage to all of humanity through my whole life even up to 1 minute before I died, but still repent. Becuase of my sudden conversion to a beleif all actions are wiped clear. There is plenty of precendent for this including your own bible. Matthew 20:1-16 The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard makes it very clear (even though it is an economically bankrupt idea).

Yes I understand that, but you obviously don’t understand what the Bible teaches about these things. When you say belief I assume you mean faith, which is a gift from God. A person are saved by grace through faith. So if God chooses to apply that saving grace to that person, that person will believe and have faith and there will be fruit resulting from this faith. None of it was that person’s choice though, so I reject the premise of the original question.

Again xtian morality laid bare for all to see. For the thought crime of non-belief it is just that an all powerful being orders my infinite punishment. Asymmetric morality if ever there was one, no wonder that fundmentalists are even seeking to re-write what hell really is and make it sound not so nasty. Although one should expect religions to evolve like everything else.

Does this constitute as an argument in your mind? “Ew I don’t like your answer therefore it is wrong!”

Crimes against the President justly warrant greater punishment because he holds greater authority, crimes against God justly warrant infinite punishment because He holds infinite authority over mankind. It’s logic, has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.

Same question then. Is the bible wrong or are these permissible because god wills it, and therefore bypass your own moral judgement?

…like I didn’t see this one coming from a mile away :-P If God said rape was morally acceptable then it would be, but that is an absurd hypothetical though because he never said it was morally acceptable, in fact he forbids any form of fornication.

Isaiah 13:15-18 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

Prophecy about the Medes taking over the Babylonians.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 In a particularly sick verse, God tells us that if a betrothed girl gets raped in a city, and does not cry out loud enough to be heard (as far as I know, it's customary to cover or tie the mouth during rape to prevent this) they must both be killed. Kill the rape victim?

You must be getting these from some atheist website, they understand scripture about as well as I do Swahili.

"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
25"But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

Notice anything? The first passage is talking about willful adultery because the woman was not seized and didn’t even attempt to cry out (it never says she tries to cry out but was stopped from doing so) this stipulation was designed to stop woman from falsely accusing men of raping them only after they had been caught committing adultery. The question could just be asked, “If you were being raped, then why did you not cry for help even though you were in the city?” The second passage has the man seizing her and raping her, even though she cries out nobody hears her to help her. The rapist is killed and the girl is not punished in any way for being raped.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 In this one, God allows us men to marry any girl we want, even against her will, (and we must have money) simply by raping her. The downside is that we must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.

I like how you throw your own little commentaries onto these verses. The verse states that if a man and woman lie together casually and are caught, they must marry one another and divorce is not an option. This would greatly reduce the amount of “casual sex” in the Jewish community and make STDs a complete non-issue.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Gives the outline for making war, or "loving your enemies" in modern Christianese. If they do not submit to becoming slaves, then you kill all the men and take the rest for 'plunder.' (See rules on raping a captive.)

So just because they took plunder it means they raped them? So did they also rape the “children, livestock and everything else in the city” since they also took those things as plunder? I am not quite seeing your steps in logic here.

Numbers 31 tells us the happy story of Moses being angry at his men for sparing the women of the Mideonites after slaughtering all the men. He orders them to go back and kill all non-virgin women and keep the virgins for themselves.

I thought we were talking about rape here…where does it say anything about rape in Numbers 31?

I dont and above I have demonstrated why. Until you can demonstrate why natural ethical systems cannot be objective, are flawed, or why xtianity is superior then I'm afraid its just bluster and can be dismissed.

I already did, observation is subjective.

Again you are attacking a strawman of your own creation. I said the would-be xtian decides to use his/her judgement to become an xtian. Part of that decision will be based on whether they are attracted to the moral codes of the xtian faith. But they must invoke morality as a standard to decide whether they can conform, are attracted to etc.

It is not the teaching of scripture that anyone “decides” to become a Christian, so it is actually you who are attacking a straw man.

That’s clearly false. You must surrender your will to that of a believed super being outside of spacetime. His will overrides your own moral autonomy, such that his commands even if judged by yourself as dubious must be followed. You have made that clear in some of your responses. The argument from moral autonomy is quite involved but if you wish I can express it in a more structured way, but the above gives you a flavour.

Again, not the Biblical teaching, so it’s a straw man. People only “choose” to become Christian after God has chosen them and renewed their will, so you have it backwards.

I'm still waiting for some Christian to answer my question as to why love is evil when the body parts are similar.

Homosexuality is an act; the act of having sexual relationships with someone of the same sex is what the Bible forbids. Love has got nothing to do with it.

Why do you need such a solid answer? Why isn't 'you wouldn't want your spouse to commit adultery, even if you would never know about it' enough? Empathy may not be a cosmic principle, but that and fear are all that keeps us from being assholes. Without those, it doesn't matter how firmly based your moral code is, you won't follow it.

So as long as the person committing the adultery doesn’t really care whether the wife they are cheating on ever cheated on them then it is ok? You are just moving water from one leaky bucket to another. I need a clear and solid reason as to why the act of adultery is morally wrong even if the person is not caught given an unbeliever’s worldview.

[DeistPaladin]

Nope, you can have the same action and have two completely different intentions,

Which is often, if not always, considered in a court of law as well as in any discussion of morality.

Shooting someone dead with malice of forethought is murder 1.
Shooting someone dead in the fit of passion is murder 2.
Shooting someone dead in a moment of negligence is manslaughter.
Shooting someone dead in self defense is justifiable homicide.

Really, I feel like I'm teaching remedial ethics here. This is embarrassing that I even have to elaborate on these issues. You amaze me with your inability to wrap your brain around no-brainer moral issues.

The rest of your post I'm not commenting on because I've told you enough times already about empathy, the social contract, about how we're community beings, etc. I really get tired of repeating myself. If you still don't get it, go take a basic college course in ethics. I'm sure your local community college might be able to help.