Hello,

On another thread I started here, starting on page three or four, Max Vel devoted numerous, extensive posts to interrogating me and attacking what he percieved to be or misinterpreted to be my moral views or values. Yesterday several other Christians joined in the fun. I have tried to answer their questions as best I can, and have repeated myself numerous times for the benefit of Max Vel, who asks me essentially the same question over and over again. I wouldn't really call this much of a discussion because the word discussion implies that there is some sort of give and take, a fair and balanced exchange of ideas. Instead questions are piled on me, I answer them as best I can and ask one or two questions in return, and my questions are ignored or dismissed and more questions are piled on me.

I don't claim to be a moral philosopher, and my explanations of morality perhaps leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that human morality is based on values that exist in people's minds and these values are shaped by upbringing, family, culture, life experiences, logic, instincts (that are bred into us by evolution), and so on. In others words, morality has a natural basis and the goal of it, generally speaking, is happiness. Furthermore, there is a commonality of moral values which results from similar needs, wants, desires and instincts. Anyway, all this seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone over these ideas again and again with my interogators on that thread and I am repeatedly told that if my view of morality is correct--that is, if morality is subjective as opposed to objective (which in this case seems to mean natural and human-based as opposed to outside-of-humanity and God-based, or, as my Christian interrogators would say, personal, subjective opinion versus God-given "truth) then no moral statement I make necessarily has any force or power or meaning to anyone else. If I say that the biblical god is immoral, for example, I am told that-if my worldview is true-this statement is equivalent to the statement that I like a particular flavor of ice cream and the statement is of no real consequence or importance to anyone else.

I have tried to explain that my moral statements are based on and are made in the context of shared cultural and societal moral values, and that there doesn't seem to be any higher or more inclusive level of morality available, at least as far as I can tell. I have repeated this information to my chat board Christian buddies numerous times in about every way I can think of, and have made a simple request to them to provide me with a factually-supported, coherent, logical explanation of their alternative to a human based morality. It seems to me that if they think my morality is so awful and meaningless, surely they would be eager to provide me with their amazingly wondrous alternative. However, instead of providing me with this alternative "objective" morality-even after several posts with repeated requests for them to do so-they ignore my requests and continue piling on the questions and attacking my moral position.

I am eager to know as much as I can about this perfectly wonderful God-given morality that my interrogators are so convinced exists, and I am sure these TWEB Christians would want as many people as possible to know about it too. Therefore I have decided to provide this thread to them so they can broadcast to the world the Good News about their God-based, perfect morality. If they are so absolutely certain that they possess a God-given objective morality, they will surely be eager to tell as many people as possible about it in as explicit detail as they can manage. Here their chance to do so!

To kick things off, I have decided to repeat three simple questions that I asked Max Vel on the other thread. Since he and the other Christians on the other thread are convinced that human morality is God-based and objective and because they make is appear that they know all about this type of morality, I would like to have them explain to me if the following actions are objectively moral wrong or objectively morally right:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?


If they say that any of these actions is objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right, I would then want them to explain, in explicit detail, the process that they went through to make that determination.

Finally, if any Christian wants to continue to ask me questions about how I think morality works, they should go to the other thread I mentioned at the beginnning of the OP. I would like to keep this thread focused on the supposed God-given objective morality that Max Vel and my other Christian interrogators champion.

Thanks.

Jimbo

Sigh. You still don't get it. Before you determine if X is objectively right or wrong, you have to determine what that means. I cannot know if Fido is a dog unless I know what a dog is. You want to switch straight to applications. We start with the ontology of morals instead.

A lot of Theists seem like "Theistic Agnostics" with respect to absolute moral values. That is, they believe such a system exists even if they don't know quite what it is.

Jimbo, is your purpose here to defend your own view of the nature of morals or to attack others' view of the nature of morals? These two things don't have to be done at the same time.

Seasanctuary,

A lot of Theists seem like "Theistic Agnostics" with respect to absolute moral values. That is, they believe such a system exists even if they don't know quite what it is.

Okay. I have to admit that I am suspicious of people who tout the superiority of one form of morality over another but misunderstand or mischaracterize the supposedly inferior form of morality and don't seem to know anything specific or concrete about the supposedly superior form of morality.

Jimbo, is your purpose here to defend your own view of the nature of morals or to attack others' view of the nature of morals? These two things don't have to be done at the same time.

I am happy to sit back and say nothing at all on this thread and simply let Max Vel and similarly- minded Christians explain their superior alternative to what they believe is my all-but-useless form of morality. My view right now is that they really don't know what they are talking about and they won't have anything of substance to say on this thread. But hey, if they are right and I am wrong, I certainly want to know and understand their superior form of morality so that I can use it and apply to my own life.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Jimbo, what if I told you that humans have the same morals as their maker?

Originally posted by UrbanMonk

Jimbo, what if I told you that humans have the same morals as their maker?

Or perhaps humans give their maker the same morals that humans have, at the particular time they make the assignment.

I think I'm starting to become a moral realist, and I'm still a convinced atheist.

There's no contradiction at all in the views.

Out of curiousity, what gives rise to objective features such as morals in your opinion?

Originally posted by jimbo

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

1. Neither. Further context is needed.

2. Wrong.

3. Wrong (but the BIblical God sends people to Hell for their sins, not for their opinions - unless those opinions are themselves sins).

Originally posted by jimbo

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

1. I like slaves.
2. Depends on the recipe.
3. I'm sure I don't have to waterboard them for eternity to get opinions out of them.

Originally posted by Carrikature

Out of curiousity, what gives rise to objective features such as morals in your opinion?

What gives rise to morals in a theistic universe?

Well, God presumably, but what about God?

Usually the answer is something like "his nature" or "his intrinsic goodness" which is just another way of saying that what's good is necessarily good.

As far as I can tell, that's the only plausible answer for anyone: good things are good because that's what they are.

And there's no more fundamental explanation, nor can there be.

~bump~

So no Christian on the TWEB apologetics board can explain how an objective, God-given morality works? If so, it isn't a surprise.

Jimbo

Originally posted by jimbo

Hello,

On another thread I started here, starting on page three or four, Max Vel devoted numerous, extensive posts to interrogating me and attacking what he percieved to be or misinterpreted to be my moral views or values. Yesterday several other Christians joined in the fun. I have tried to answer their questions as best I can, and have repeated myself numerous times for the benefit of Max Vel, who asks me essentially the same question over and over again. I wouldn't really call this much of a discussion because the word discussion implies that there is some sort of give and take, a fair and balanced exchange of ideas. Instead questions are piled on me, I answer them as best I can and ask one or two questions in return, and my questions are ignored or dismissed and more questions are piled on me.

I don't claim to be a moral philosopher, and my explanations of morality perhaps leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that human morality is based on values that exist in people's minds and these values are shaped by upbringing, family, culture, life experiences, logic, instincts (that are bred into us by evolution), and so on. In others words, morality has a natural basis and the goal of it, generally speaking, is happiness. Furthermore, there is a commonality of moral values which results from similar needs, wants, desires and instincts. Anyway, all this seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone over these ideas again and again with my interogators on that thread and I am repeatedly told that if my view of morality is correct--that is, if morality is subjective as opposed to objective (which in this case seems to mean natural and human-based as opposed to outside-of-humanity and God-based, or, as my Christian interrogators would say, personal, subjective opinion versus God-given "truth) then no moral statement I make necessarily has any force or power or meaning to anyone else. If I say that the biblical god is immoral, for example, I am told that-if my worldview is true-this statement is equivalent to the statement that I like a particular flavor of ice cream and the statement is of no real consequence or importance to anyone else.

I have tried to explain that my moral statements are based on and are made in the context of shared cultural and societal moral values, and that there doesn't seem to be any higher or more inclusive level of morality available, at least as far as I can tell. I have repeated this information to my chat board Christian buddies numerous times in about every way I can think of, and have made a simple request to them to provide me with a factually-supported, coherent, logical explanation of their alternative to a human based morality. It seems to me that if they think my morality is so awful and meaningless, surely they would be eager to provide me with their amazingly wondrous alternative. However, instead of providing me with this alternative "objective" morality-even after several posts with repeated requests for them to do so-they ignore my requests and continue piling on the questions and attacking my moral position.

I am eager to know as much as I can about this perfectly wonderful God-given morality that my interrogators are so convinced exists, and I am sure these TWEB Christians would want as many people as possible to know about it too. Therefore I have decided to provide this thread to them so they can broadcast to the world the Good News about their God-based, perfect morality. If they are so absolutely certain that they possess a God-given objective morality, they will surely be eager to tell as many people as possible about it in as explicit detail as they can manage. Here their chance to do so!

To kick things off, I have decided to repeat three simple questions that I asked Max Vel on the other thread. Since he and the other Christians on the other thread are convinced that human morality is God-based and objective and because they make is appear that they know all about this type of morality, I would like to have them explain to me if the following actions are objectively moral wrong or objectively morally right:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?


If they say that any of these actions is objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right, I would then want them to explain, in explicit detail, the process that they went through to make that determination.

Finally, if any Christian wants to continue to ask me questions about how I think morality works, they should go to the other thread I mentioned at the beginnning of the OP. I would like to keep this thread focused on the supposed God-given objective morality that Max Vel and my other Christian interrogators champion.

Thanks.

Jimbo

1. Humans putting people into slavery is objectively morally wrong because God created humans with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2.Humans slaughtering little, cooing babies is objectively morally wrong because God created human babies with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

3. Humans are incapable of torturing people for eternity. I do not understand this question.

Originally posted by jimbo

~bump~

So no Christian on the TWEB apologetics board can explain how an objective, God-given morality works? If so, it isn't a surprise.

Jimbo

I think most people were trying to answer your questions. Are you looking for an explanation of those answers?

Morality comes from God the same way scientific law originates with God, it is a created thing, subject to logic, established from the beginning.

This is aboslute: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because what goes around comes around.

Everything else is commentary or application of the absolute moral law.

This law is absolute because there is no circumstance in which we can qualify this culturally. It is further made absolute because if you violate this, if you create a world where acting contrary to the first principle is active, then you will be punished by the progress of the moral law. It not seen as objective because people are either morally blind or persistent in the error of the primacy of science as the only means of human inquiry.

Applying first (Do unto others...) and second (What goes around...) principles to these examples:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

A. In a culture where there is no effective debt accountability (other than violence) or welfare, putting people out of the community rather than allowing them to be slaves would be objectively morally wrong because we would want people to provide for our needs if we were amongst the weakest of those. If this is violated, we may create a world in which we find ourselves weak and lacking care. We will degenerate into a cycle of violence and revenge as others try to hold us accountable for our callousness.

B. In a culture where is effective debt collection without violence or incarceration and there is an established tradition of general welfare, making them slaves is objectively morally wrong becauase we wouldn't want people to make us slaves when there are better solutions. If this is violated, we will again create a world that cycles around violence, revenge, and pain. We will be subject to this, in some way, no matter what.

C. In a culture where civilians end up as prisoners of war, it is better to make them slaves than to engage in genocide. This is because we would want a chance at life and the ability to join a new culture rather than being exterminated. If we violate this, we create a world that tolerates genocide. That will hurt when it bites us.

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

A. If I choose on my own to slaughter liitle cooing babies, I am objectively morally wrong because I have learned from scripture to follow the Golden Rule. If I violate this, there is a chance that such a tragedy will occur to me or one I love.

B. If I choose on my own to slaughter babies who cannot coo because they are in the womb, I am objectively morally wrong because I would not want to be murdered in utero. If I violate this, I help create a world in which human life and rights are cheap.

C. If I am God, it is immoral for me not to kill people period. Sometimes they are cooing little babies, sometimes they are old farts, sometimes they are villains, sometimes they are saints. It is what I do. It is my divine portfolio. I manage life and welfare for all. Because I have advanced knowledge and more responsibility, I must make these decisions. If I tell you to be my agent, you are objectively morally wrong to violate my order to kill cooing little babies because you don't know what I know and don't have the authority to violate that command. There is a good presentation of this in "What Men Live By" by Leo Tolstoy. If you try to argue Ad Absurdem Nazi I will point out that none other than God has the authority to make this command. If a person claims to speak for God, you better be certain that is so.

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

A. That would be objectively morally wrong.

B. Torturing people for eternity for their sin, however, might be something else. Is that what you actually want to discuss?

fwiw,
guaca.

Originally posted by jimbo

~bump~

So no Christian on the TWEB apologetics board can explain how an objective, God-given morality works? If so, it isn't a surprise.

Jimbo

so you are saying no Christian will answer your stuff, so you are calling all Christians bad names and accusing them of things aren't you?

so you are just dong more little bad mouth stuff and not trying to discussions things honestly aren't you?

do you like cheese? I really like cheese what's your favorite?

say I love DC comics. I notice you use Branic as your avator, but the bad Braiac. why don't you use Brainac 5? you are trying to say you know atheists are bad? Is that it?

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

A lot of Theists seem like "Theistic Agnostics" with respect to absolute moral values. That is, they believe such a system exists even if they don't know quite what it is.

Jimbo, is your purpose here to defend your own view of the nature of morals or to attack others' view of the nature of morals? These two things don't have to be done at the same time.

are you saying that he has a hidden agenda? That's insulting. how dare you insult an atheist. I think you are being a troll because you are insulting an atheist.