Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

Christians agree on most morals though Jim. We even agree with Jews, Hindus and Muslims on most issues. Such as abortion is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Murder is immoral. Homosexuality is immoral. Being an atheist is immoral.

No, not all christians agree on all of those things, and not all atheists agree either. For example, there are I'm sure, many athiests who are pro-life, or anti-abortion, but their stance is based on their own reasoning, not religious dogma, and contra to that, there are many christians who are pro choice and pro same sex marriage. The same is true with respect to murder or theft etc etc. which I would suspect that most all people, whether religious or non-religious agree upon.

Sure there are a minority of liberal Christians who might disagree, but they don't count because they are the minority. see?

They are not necessarily the minority when they align themselves with atheists to whom they are in agreement with.

Of course as an immoral basket of deporables, Atheists cannot grasp that they are evil incarnate.

I appreciate your wry sense of humor Sparko, your making me laugh.

[Sparko]

No, not all christians agree on all of those things, and not all atheists agree either. For example, there are I'm sure, many athiests who are pro-life, or anti-abortion, but their stance is based on their own reasoning, not religious dogma, and contra to that, there are many christians who are pro choice and pro same sex marriage. The same is true with respect to murder or theft etc etc. which I would suspect that most all people, whether religious or non-religious agree upon.

They are not necessarily the minority when they align themselves with atheists to whom they are in agreement with.

Yes, they are. Atheists are a very small minority and like I said Theists are very much in the Majority and have a pretty common moral base. If we as a group decide that you are evil and immoral because you don't believe in God, then that makes you evil and immoral by your own standards, correct? You can't argue that you are not evil because you are in the minority and morals are purely subjective, right?

I appreciate your wry sense of humor Sparko, your making me laugh.

See? You are so degenerate that you can't spell "you're" correctly.

[Tassman]

I don't really care what a moral degenerate like you thinks or prefers because you are the immoral minority. Only the morals that the bible teaches count because society is overwhelmingly Christian. Even the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews agree on most of the morals that Christianity do. And since atheists like yourself are less than 10% of the population, your ideas of morality don't count. According to your and JimL's own standards even. Thanks.

Don’t judge the civilised world by the standards of the morally degenerate USA. The majority of western civilisation is ‘post Christian’ with values far removed from say, Evangelical ignoramuses like you.

[JimL]

Yes, they are. Atheists are a very small minority and like I said Theists are very much in the Majority and have a pretty common moral base. If we as a group decide that you are evil and immoral because you don't believe in God, then that makes you evil and immoral by your own standards, correct? You can't argue that you are not evil because you are in the minority and morals are purely subjective, right?

Wrong again. And I see you switched from majority christian to majority thiest. Cute, and nice try. But, like I said christian or thiest, believers in a god though they be, they all don't necessarily agree with the moral stances of their particular cult. So, if you want to continue your silly argument then all christians that are pro life are immoral degenerates, and all christians who are pro same sex marriage are immoral degenerates etc. etc., So you christians as a religious group don't get to decide for the state or get to codefy into law what is or is not moral, and thank goodness for that. You can think what you want of course, well so long as your thoughts are aligned with your religions dogma you can, but no, sadly for you, you don't get to decide.

[Zymologist]

Don’t judge the civilised world by the standards of the morally degenerate USA. The majority of western civilisation is ‘post Christian’ with values far removed from say, Evangelical ignoramuses like you.

I agree, the USA is morally degenerate.

...but for some reason I don't think we mean the same thing by that.

[Tassman]

I agree, the USA is morally degenerate.

...but for some reason I don't think we mean the same thing by that.

Probably not! And yet the post Christian secularism of most of the western world countries is far less “degenerate” than the violent and inequitable USA.

[Sparko]

Don’t judge the civilised world by the standards of the morally degenerate USA. The majority of western civilisation is ‘post Christian’ with values far removed from say, Evangelical ignoramuses like you.

In Phuket where you have as a location on your profile, is mostly Buddhist which also share similar morals to Christianity.

And Australia is mostly Christian still. So you are even in the minority there.

ScreenHunter_.jpg

[Sparko]

Wrong again. And I see you switched from majority christian to majority thiest. Cute, and nice try. But, like I said christian or thiest, believers in a god though they be, they all don't necessarily agree with the moral stances of their particular cult. So, if you want to continue your silly argument then all christians that are pro life are immoral degenerates, and all christians who are pro same sex marriage are immoral degenerates etc. etc., So you christians as a religious group don't get to decide for the state or get to codefy into law what is or is not moral, and thank goodness for that. You can think what you want of course, well so long as your thoughts are aligned with your religions dogma you can, but no, sadly for you, you don't get to decide.

JimL, I have been stating that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu etc all share common morals. Go back and check. I didn't switch anything.

But I guess a moral midget like you can't be bothered to read or understand a cogent argument.

And yes, according to your OWN ideas of morality, WE do get to decide. You don't because you are a minority view and that makes you evil.

Now if you want to go by MY ideas of morality, then there are actual objective good and evil in the world. Societies from time to time might get it wrong or not give a crap and do evil and call it good. For instance the Nazis claiming that killing Jews was "good". Under your view, since a majority of that society thought it was good, then it was good. But in reality, and you understand this at a basic level but don't want to admit it, what they did was objectively evil. It would have still been evil even if the entire world though it was good at the time. Kinda like slavery in the old USA. Even though the entire country and most of the world thought such slavery was moral, we know it is not. It is evil now, and it was evil then. There is such a thing as good and evil and it doesn't matter how many people at a specific time believe it.

[JimL]

JimL, I have been stating that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu etc all share common morals. Go back and check. I didn't switch anything.

But I guess a moral midget like you can't be bothered to read or understand a cogent argument.

And yes, according to your OWN ideas of morality, WE do get to decide. You don't because you are a minority view and that makes you evil.

Now if you want to go by MY ideas of morality, then there are actual objective good and evil in the world. Societies from time to time might get it wrong or not give a crap and do evil and call it good. For instance the Nazis claiming that killing Jews was "good". Under your view, since a majority of that society thought it was good, then it was good. But in reality, and you understand this at a basic level but don't want to admit it, what they did was objectively evil. It would have still been evil even if the entire world though it was good at the time. Kinda like slavery in the old USA. Even though the entire country and most of the world thought such slavery was moral, we know it is not. It is evil now, and it was evil then. There is such a thing as good and evil and it doesn't matter how many people at a specific time believe it.

Wrong again. You are for some reason under the assumption that it is what the majority believes that counts, that makes a behavior good or bad. It's not. It's what is in the best interests of human society and so in the best interests human beings in general that counts. But then again, I guess a moral midget like yourself can't be bothered to read or understand a cogent argument, or make one either.

[Sparko]

Wrong again. You are for some reason under the assumption that it is what the majority believes that counts, that makes a behavior good or bad. It's not. It's what is in the best interests of human society and so in the best interests human beings in general that counts. But then again, I guess a moral midget like yourself can't be bothered to read or understand a cogent argument, or make one either.

What does "best" mean Jim? That sounds like a moral judgment. I guess the majority decides? You said "we as a society decide" so that would have to mean a majority in that society, right? If the majority of society decides that it is "best for society" to kill Jews, then it is OK?

IF the entire world* thought it was good to kill all the Jews in gas chambers, would it then be good?


*(well except for the Jews of course)

[JimL]

What does "best" mean Jim? That sounds like a moral judgment. I guess the majority decides? You said "we as a society decide" so that would have to mean a majority in that society, right? If the majority of society decides that it is "best for society" to kill Jews, then it is OK?

IF the entire world* thought it was good to kill all the Jews in gas chambers, would it then be good?

Best means best, whether or not it is understood to be best. The majority doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, the majority could always be wrong. Moral laws which are in the overall best interests of human society and in turn the best overall interests of human beings who live together as a society is in their best overall interests whether they know it or not. The human community has, for the most part, come to a basic agreement in this and share common morals as you yourself have acknowledged.

The reason for this is a practical one, those shared common morals have proven themselves to serve the best interests of human society.

[Sparko]

Best means best, whether or not it is understood to be best.

That doesn't mean anything Jim, other than you don't know what "best" means.

The majority doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, the majority could always be wrong.

Then who decides what is "best"? Why is it not "best" to get rid of people everyone hates, if the world all wanted to get rid of the Jews in ww2?

Moral laws which are in the overall best interests of human society and in turn the best overall interests of human beings who live together as a society is in their best overall interests whether they know it or not.

But without defining "best" or "better" or "worse" you cannot judge it better or worse.

The human community has, for the most part, come to a basic
agreement in this and share common morals as you yourself have acknowledged. The reason for this is a practical one, those shared common morals work to serve the best interests of human society.

"best" and "better" implies an actual goal, a standard of perfection to strive for. A goal that is Good. A standard that stands alone despite what everyone may think. You are comparing what is to what ought to be.


What you are describing is an objective moral standard. Thanks for playing JimL - you lose.

[seer]

What you are describing is an objective moral standard. Thanks for playing JimL - you lose.

Ouch...

[Tassman]

In Phuket where you have as a location on your profile, is mostly Buddhist which also share similar morals to Christianity.

Buddhists do not share most of the core beliefs of historical Christianity. The only real shared quality is the ‘ethic of reciprocity” (i.e. the Golden Rule) but Buddhism, Christianity and all of the other major world religions and secular societies have this in common.

And Australia is mostly Christian still. So you are even in the minority there.

Australia is only nominally Christian with the largest 'religious group being “No Religion” at 31% according to the 2016 Census. Religion plays no discernible role in the national discourse...unlike the USA.

“Australia’s churches are in a crisis according to The Australian‘s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan”. “They behave as though they still represent a living consensus.” In fact they don’t and churches are virtually empty on Sundays. And this is true of most western countries.

http://www-archive.biblesociety.org....is-is-he-right

In fact , outside the USA, the West is a 'post Christian' society.

[Sparko]

Buddhists do not share most of the core beliefs of historical Christianity. The only real shared quality is the ‘ethic of reciprocity” (i.e. the Golden Rule) but Buddhism, Christianity and all of the other major world religions and secular societies have this in common.

Nice attempt at moving goal posts. But I said sharing morals. Ethics. Not core beliefs or doctrines. Such as being anti-abortion.

Australia is only nominally Christian with the largest 'religious group being “No Religion” at 31% according to the 2016 Census. Religion plays no discernible role in the national discourse...unlike the USA.

“Australia’s churches are in a crisis according to The Australian‘s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan”. “They behave as though they still represent a living consensus.” In fact they don’t and churches are virtually empty on Sundays. And this is true of most western countries.

http://www-archive.biblesociety.org....is-is-he-right

In fact , outside the USA, the West is a 'post Christian' society.

The top three categories on that chart ARE Christian, Tassy. Just different denominations. Christians make up 52.2% of the population. Last time I checked that is 52% is more than 30%.

You realize don't you that I don't actually believe that morals are determined by the majority of society? I was showing you and JimL how ridiculous such a thing is. Your arguing against me shows you think it is ridiculous too. Morals are not determined by how many people believe something is good or not. They are determined by if the act is good or bad itself based on an objective standard that we all recognize, even if, like JimL, you can't express it clearly.