Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morality or Obedience?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That doesn't mean anything Jim, other than you don't know what "best" means.
    Sparko, do you really believe that one would have to know what the "best" is in order for there to be a "best?" You are thinking in terms of your self, rather than what is in the best interests of a community.

    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?
    Because anyone could be one of the unwanted people, if not now later.

    But without defining "best" or "better" or "worse" you cannot judge it better or worse.
    But we can define best. It's best to live, ie, to not be murdered. It's best to not to be robbed, etc etc etc.



    "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.
    The best morals to live by has nothing to do with morals themselves being objective. I've tried to make this point to you all a number of times but it just doesn't seem to get through.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Sparko, do you really believe that one would have to know what the "best" is in order for there to be a "best?" You are thinking in terms of your self, rather than what is in the best interests of a community.


      Because anyone could be one of the unwanted people, if not now later.


      But we can define best. It's best to live, ie, to not be murdered. It's best to not to be robbed, etc etc etc.
      So then why do we think it was best to kill the Nazis?

      You keep arguing MY point of view but don't realize it. That there is an objective standard out there that we measure our actions against and determine if they are "better" or "worse" than other actions. We have this notion of what is "better" and what is "good" and we measure against that. Otherwise the only thing that would matter is what society or a person thinks is "good" at any given moment. And nobody could judge them on it.


      The best morals to live by has nothing to do with morals themselves being objective. I've tried to make this point to you all a number of times but it just doesn't seem to get through.
      You just don't even realize that you actually believe in objective morality. You keep arguing against it, but when questioned and given examples you resort to an objective standard.

      JimL you have lost this debate and you still don't even realize it. wow.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Jed, I was consistent in both cases. I said that Thomas Jefferson was not a christian and similarly I said that not all people who claim to be christians are actually christians in the sense that they hold to the same moral principles. Jefferson wasn't a christian because to him Jesus was not christ, was not god. But here we were talking christian morality, not a belief in christ, and my point is that not all christians hold to the same morality. So again, when Sparko said that christian morality is all that counts, he's not speaking for all christians. Thats the point I was making. Now, you should give yourself a warning for calling me a liar. Having an opinion that differs from your own does not a liar make.
        If you think I was in the wrong it is up to you to do the reporting of the comment.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          So then why do we think it was best to kill the Nazis?
          Because sometimes people give you no choice. That's not murder.
          You keep arguing MY point of view but don't realize it. That there is an objective standard out there that we measure our actions against and determine if they are "better" or "worse" than other actions. We have this notion of what is "better" and what is "good" and we measure against that. Otherwise the only thing that would matter is what society or a person thinks is "good" at any given moment. And nobody could judge them on it.
          No, there are no objective morals in my opinion, that certain behaviors better serve the interests of society and so the members as a whole thereof, doesn't make them objective realites, or divine laws, in and of themselves.



          You just don't even realize that you actually believe in objective morality. You keep arguing against it, but when questioned and given examples you resort to an objective standard.

          JimL you have lost this debate and you still don't even realize it. wow.
          Nope, you just don't understand the difference. Morals don't need to exist out there objectively in order that we adjust our behaviors in ways that best serve us.
          Last edited by JimL; 11-16-2017, 03:30 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            "Why shouldn't we live however we pleased if it were proved that God didn't exist?"
            For me, as a student of philosophy, because the concept does not universalize without contradiction. I ask myself, "if everyone operated that way, what would the world be like?" The answer is "pretty awful." So, that concept falls outside my moral code.

            Nice to see you again, MM. Been a long time.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Nice attempt at moving goal posts. But I said sharing morals. Ethics. Not core beliefs or doctrines. Such as being anti-abortion.
              The only real shared quality is the ‘ethic of reciprocity” (i.e. the Golden Rule). ALL of the major world religions and secular societies have this in common because it is naturally built into us via natural selection to facilitate the breeding and survival of our species.

              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%.
              Yes, they are nominally Christians, i.e. Christians in name only, as I said,. And the largest single grouping of Australians is in the ‘no-religion’ category...and steadily growing. Unlike the USA, religion plays no effective role in the national discourse and the churches are virtually empty on Sundays.

              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.
              Morals are demonstrably determined by the majority of society which is why societal values have so markedly changed over the millennia. What was acceptable behaviour in many areas 100 years ago is no longer accepted...slavery, the subjugation of women and the denial of LGBT rights being just some examples.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Because sometimes people give you no choice. That's not murder.
                we had a choice. We could have surrendered. You just said that killing people is not in the best interest of mankind. Yet now you argue it was.

                No, there are no objective morals in my opinion, that certain behaviors better serve the interests of society and so the members as a whole thereof, doesn't make them objective realites, or divine laws, in and of themselves.
                You still don't get it. And that is both sad and hilarious. Everyone reading this thread gets it but you (and maybe Tassman). If you are arguing that something is in the "best" interest, you have to have concept of "best" that you are measuring against. And you claim this "best" concept transcends various societies. And even if every human on the planet thought differently there would still be this "best" ideal to measure against.

                That is an objective moral.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The only real shared quality is the ‘ethic of reciprocity” (i.e. the Golden Rule). ALL of the major world religions and secular societies have this in common because it is naturally built into us via natural selection to facilitate the breeding and survival of our species.



                  Yes, they are nominally Christians, i.e. Christians in name only, as I said,. And the largest single grouping of Australians is in the ‘no-religion’ category...and steadily growing. Unlike the USA, religion plays no effective role in the national discourse and the churches are virtually empty on Sundays.



                  Morals are demonstrably determined by the majority of society which is why societal values have so markedly changed over the millennia. What was acceptable behaviour in many areas 100 years ago is no longer accepted...slavery, the subjugation of women and the denial of LGBT rights being just some examples.
                  acceptable behaviors change depending on societies but their moral value doesn't. That is why we can say that slavery was immoral in the 1800s even though they at the time would have told you that it was perfectly fine to own human beings. It is what allows you as a liberal to rage about confederate statues and such. If morals were simply what a society thought at the time, then you have no argument.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    acceptable behaviors change depending on societies but their moral value doesn't.
                    It is the societies that decide what are acceptable or unacceptable behaviours and their moral value. There is no other source.

                    That is why we can say that slavery was immoral in the 1800s even though they at the time would have told you that it was perfectly fine to own human beings.
                    We can only say “slavery was immoral in the 1800” as seen through the eyes of current moral values. Moral values evolve over time. We have developed a concept of equal human rights for all and consider slavery to be immoral, they did not.

                    It is what allows you as a liberal to rage about confederate statues and such. If morals were simply what a society thought at the time, then you have no argument.
                    “Confederate statues and such” were erected to further a 'white supremacist future' in defiance of the values fought for in the civil war and the abolishing of the Jim Crow laws. In short they opposed the prevailing worldwide moral values.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      we had a choice. We could have surrendered. You just said that killing people is not in the best interest of mankind. Yet now you argue it was.



                      You still don't get it. And that is both sad and hilarious. Everyone reading this thread gets it but you (and maybe Tassman). If you are arguing that something is in the "best" interest, you have to have concept of "best" that you are measuring against. And you claim this "best" concept transcends various societies. And even if every human on the planet thought differently there would still be this "best" ideal to measure against.

                      That is an objective moral.
                      No, actually you still don't get it. And I wouldn't be speaking for everyone else when you yourself just can't seem to comprehend. What we measure it against is our own self interests as a society, not some transcendent objective standard. Let me see if I can give you an example to make it easier for you to understand. It's not morally wrong to murder in and of itself because of some objective transcendant law that says so, the behavior is morally wrong because it is not in the best interests of society, or the members thereof, that we murder each other. Are you able to understand now what is meant by the concept of "best"? Sheesh!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        It is the societies that decide what are acceptable or unacceptable behaviours and their moral value. There is no other source.



                        We can only say “slavery was immoral in the 1800” as seen through the eyes of current moral values. Moral values evolve over time. We have developed a concept of equal human rights for all and consider slavery to be immoral, they did not.



                        “Confederate statues and such” were erected to further a 'white supremacist future' in defiance of the values fought for in the civil war and the abolishing of the Jim Crow laws. In short they opposed the prevailing worldwide moral values.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          No, actually you still don't get it. And I wouldn't be speaking for everyone else when you yourself just can't seem to comprehend. What we measure it against is our own self interests as a society, not some transcendent objective standard. Let me see if I can give you an example to make it easier for you to understand. It's not morally wrong to murder in and of itself because of some objective transcendant law that says so, the behavior is morally wrong because it is not in the best interests of society, or the members thereof, that we murder each other. Are you able to understand now what is meant by the concept of "best"? Sheesh!
                          yes, you are trying to rationalize your belief in an objective moral standard but you are failing.

                          You are talking about "murder" but the very word murder means "immoral killing" so there is no such thing as a moral murder so your example is a non-sequitur.

                          Why was it moral to kill Nazi's in WW2?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            What a cop-out. How about addressing the issue.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • In other words, if God did not exist would you cease to live according to the morals that you now hold to?
                              That's called a counter-possible. Being a Christian, if God didn't exist, I wouldn't exist. If I don't exist, I can't hold any morals, can I?
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                That's called a counter-possible. Being a Christian, if God didn't exist, I wouldn't exist. If I don't exist, I can't hold any morals, can I?
                                God doesn’t exist and yet you do exist so your morality, whilst attributed by you to “God”, is in fact based upon a different source. I would suggest that it is based upon the moral values held by the society in which you live.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X