Atheistforums.com

Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

Like I said in the other thread, we get our morals from interacting with other people, such as the Golden Rule of morality being a result of two or more people interacting. No god (or other outside source) needed.

I got my morals from being taught it from a very kind, moral, open mind mother, and she got hers from having a father of the same moral standard.
It comes from a combination of common sense, natural empathy, and education. I was also taught the valuable lesson, "treat others as you would be treated, show kindness when it's given, but do not take shit from those who don't".

Cultural upbringing, experiencing consequences of one's own actions, witnessing the consequences of the actions of others, logical reasoning, natural feelings of empathy, and a number of other sources.

Quote from: Atheon on March 06, 2015, 05:49:32 AM
Cultural upbringing, experiencing consequences of one's own actions, witnessing the consequences of the actions of others, logical reasoning, natural feelings of empathy, and a number of other sources.

I would like to just take the first thing you mentioned, 'culture upbringing'.  In Nazi Germany, a very large number of people came to believe that killing Jewish people, and anyone else who stood against Germany was a good thing.  Many people were culturally brought up in an environment where the Holocaust was an acceptable moral action.  My argument is that this is false, the Holocaust was still morally wrong despite how many people thought it was right.  Cultural upbringing is not enough to determine what is truly right or wrong.  All atheists have to offer is their own subjective opinion, which is nice, but not sufficient in the eyes of many.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 06, 2015, 05:46:13 AM
Like I said in the other thread, we get our morals from interacting with other people, such as the Golden Rule of morality being a result of two or more people interacting. No god (or other outside source) needed.

Right, I see.   We get our morals from interacting with other people.  What do we do when people interact with one another and decide that an event such as the Holocaust, is a morally good event?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:03:26 AM
Right, I see.   We get our morals from interacting with other people.  What do we do when people interact with one another and decide that an event such as the Holocaust, is a morally good event?

Conflict would be the only result, I reckon, because it would be against basic moral principles, which is probably why WW2 happened, starting with the Nazis invading Poland.

Have you seen the movie, Conspiracy (2001) aka The Final Solution? It is based on the meeting where the Nazis official discuss what to with the Jewish 'problem'. The movie illustrates in great detail what they thought and how they responded to the Führer's insane policies, concocting The Final Solution.

Anyways, I doubt even they thought it was morally good, just necessary to fulfill a madman's desires.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 06, 2015, 06:19:30 AM
Conflict would be the only result, I reckon, because it would be against basic moral principles, which is probably why WW2 happened, starting with the Nazis invading Poland.

Sounds like a movie I should take the time to watch someday.  Just quickly though, I do not understand when you say 'it would be against moral principles'.  You said that morals come from people interacting with one another.   Lets say that we have two groups of people.  Group A consists of people that interact and say that the Holocaust was morally wrong.  Group B consists of people that interact say that the Holocaust was morally right.  Group A and Group B do conflict with one another.  Based upon an atheistic view of the world, how do we determine who is right though?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:26:59 AM
Sounds like a movie I should take the time to watch someday.  Just quickly though, I do not understand when you say 'it would be against moral principles'.  You said that morals come from people interacting with one another.   Lets say that we have two groups of people.  Group A consists of people that interact and say that the Holocaust was morally wrong.  Group B consists of people that interact say that the Holocaust was morally right.  Group A and Group B do conflict with one another.  Based upon an atheistic view of the world, how do we determine who is right though?

By the amount of harm done.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:26:59 AM
Sounds like a movie I should take the time to watch someday.  Just quickly though, I do not understand when you say 'it would be against moral principles'.  You said that morals come from people interacting with one another.   Lets say that we have two groups of people.  Group A consists of people that interact and say that the Holocaust was morally wrong.  Group B consists of people that interact say that the Holocaust was morally right.  Group A and Group B do conflict with one another.  Based upon an atheistic view of the world, how do we determine who is right though?

Jesus fucking Christ you God damn moron - are you so fucking stupid that you couldn't figure out the right side of the holocaust without your fucking god? THAT is exactly why y'all have zero credibility with us! Prick!

Quote from: hrdlr110 on March 06, 2015, 06:35:42 AM
are you so fucking stupid that you couldn't figure out the right side of the holocaust without your fucking god? THAT is exactly why y'all have zero credibility with us! Prick!

This is actually a great point.  But I will try to further explain.  It may be clear to most of you that I am not an atheist.  Lets pretend that I was though.  If I was an atheist, I would tell you that I still think the Holocaust was morally wrong.   So it is obvious that I do not need to believe in God to figure out the right side to the Holocaust.   The difference is, however, is that no one would have any logical reason to believe that I am actually RIGHT.  If you are an atheist, and if you believe that the Holocaust was wrong, then you CANNOT argue that the Holocaust was ACTUALLY wrong.  You have no objective standard of morality.  You simply just belief that the Holocaust was wrong.  So I do not need God to know that the holocaust was wrong, but I DO need God to know that the Holocaust was truly and objectively wrong.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 06, 2015, 06:29:23 AM
By the amount of harm done.

I see a problem here.  Remember that Group B consists of people who have interacted together and belief that the holocaust is morally right.  For this group of people, they sincerely believe that there is NO harm being done to the Jewish people.  Since the Jewish people, are not really 'people' in their eyes.  However, Group A has interacted together and believes that there IS harm being done to the Jewish people.  We have two groups here.  One says there is harm being done (A), and one says there is no harm being done (B).  Which group then should we take sides on?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:00:52 AM
I would like to just take the first thing you mentioned, 'culture upbringing'.  In Nazi Germany, a very large number of people came to believe that killing Jewish people, and anyone else who stood against Germany was a good thing.  Many people were culturally brought up in an environment where the Holocaust was an acceptable moral action.

Yup. Sometimes people are instilled with faulty morals.

You asked where people get their morals from. Unfortunately, some get theirs (in part) from immoral people.

QuoteMy argument is that this is false, the Holocaust was still morally wrong despite how many people thought it was right.  Cultural upbringing is not enough to determine what is truly right or wrong.  All atheists have to offer is their own subjective opinion, which is nice, but not sufficient in the eyes of many.

That's where reasoning, empathy and other factors come in. The Holocaust is immoral from standpoints of logic and empathy. It doesn't take a god to understand that the Holocaust was wrong.

Where was god anyway, during that horrific time? Didn't lift a finger to stop it. If I were god, I would have prevented it from even happening in the first place. Guess that makes me morally superior to your god (the same god that supposedly ordered the slaughter of the Amalekites).

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:00:52 AM
I would like to just take the first thing you mentioned, 'culture upbringing'.  In Nazi Germany, a very large number of people came to believe that killing Jewish people, and anyone else who stood against Germany was a good thing.  Many people were culturally brought up in an environment where the Holocaust was an acceptable moral action.  My argument is that this is false, the Holocaust was still morally wrong despite how many people thought it was right.  Cultural upbringing is not enough to determine what is truly right or wrong.  All atheists have to offer is their own subjective opinion, which is nice, but not sufficient in the eyes of many.

But i'd rather have it my opinion than one laid upon me that i disagree with. I think we can both agree that genocide is wrong. However, if your god ( i assume Allah or yahweh) were to order it, then suddenly it'd be okay. And yahweh or Allah have according to scripture ordered these exact things in The past while condemning it in another passage. This makes it clear that most if not all religions don't even have the objective morality they claim, or it is one created by a sociopath. In which case: i prefer my own standaards and Morales achieved throughout a lifetime of sociability, learning, cultural upbringing, experiencing emotion and feelings, reasoning, working and bondig with people.
It may not be sufficiënt to many. But it's honest and real.
Short reply: deal with it.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:45:49 AM
This is actually a great point.  But I will try to further explain.  It may be clear to most of you that I am not an atheist.  Lets pretend that I was though.  If I was an atheist, I would tell you that I still think the Holocaust was morally wrong.   So it is obvious that I do not need to believe in God to figure out the right side to the Holocaust.   The difference is, however, is that no one would have any logical reason to believe that I am actually RIGHT.  If you are an atheist, and if you believe that the Holocaust was wrong, then you CANNOT argue that the Holocaust was ACTUALLY wrong.  You have no objective standard of morality.  You simply just belief that the Holocaust was wrong.  So I do not need God to know that the holocaust was wrong, but I DO need God to know that the Holocaust was truly and objectively wrong.

You're not very good at pretending to be an atheist. You better go back to believing in your pretend god. You know, the one that sat back and watched the holocaust happen right before his eyes and didn't lift a finger. Or did he...........come to think of it, your god, the one I've heard and read about, was most likely on the wrong side of the holocaust. 

Quote from: Atheon on March 06, 2015, 06:52:41 AM
Yup. Sometimes people are instilled with faulty morals.

You asked where people get their morals from. Unfortunately, some get theirs (in part) from immoral people.
That's where reasoning, empathy and other factors come in. The Holocaust is immoral from standpoints of logic and empathy. It doesn't take a god to understand that the Holocaust was wrong.

Where was god anyway, during that horrific time? Didn't lift a finger to stop it. If I were god, I would have prevented it from even happening in the first place. Guess that makes me morally superior to your god (the same god that supposedly ordered the slaughter of the Amalekites).

I belief you when you say that you would have prevented the Holocaust from happening if you foresaw its coming.  However, we are not talking about this topic.  I would like to stick on the topic of objective/subjective morality.  You said that 'sometimes people are instilled with faulty morals'.   How do you know that those faulty morals are ACTUAL faulty morals?  The Nazi-Germans would argue against you saying that those morals are not faulty but good.  You subjectively have said that those morals are faulty.  But if you or the Nazi-Germans are trying to persuade me to take a side on the Holocaust, do you have anything objective to offer me while dealing with morals?

Quote from: hrdlr110 on March 06, 2015, 07:02:57 AM
You're not very good at pretending to be an atheist. You better go back to believing in your pretend god. You know, the one that sat back and watched the holocaust happen right before his eyes and didn't lift a finger. Or did he...........come to think of it, your god, the one I've heard and read about, was most likely on the wrong side of the holocaust.

Well you say he is pretend, but once again that is just your subjective opinion.  So I have no reason to actually believe you.  Anyways, lets get to the point here.  Did you notice how you refused to answer my question?  My conclusion was that an atheist can end up believing in something that is wrong, but that they need to belief in God to know that something is TRULY wrong.  God, being the objective standard of morality gives the person a reason to belief and know that events (such as the Holocaust were actually wrong).  The atheist only has his/her subjective opinion.  Why would I chose to stand with a subjective opinion of man?  Human beings are capable and do make mistakes all the time.  If I want to really know truth, should I not go to an objective source of morality a.k.a God?

The Christian God is immoral.

Muslims are sinful.

I didn't refuse to answer your question - I just think your wrong, and that you won't be swayed because of your god. Your mind is closed to learnin - G'day

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 06, 2015, 06:59:52 AM
But i'd rather have it my opinion than one laid upon me that i disagree with. I think we can both agree that genocide is wrong. However, if your god ( i assume Allah or yahweh) were to order it, then suddenly it'd be okay. And yahweh or Allah have according to scripture ordered these exact things in The past while condemning it in another passage. This makes it clear that most if not all religions don't even have the objective morality they claim, or it is one created by a sociopath. In which case: i prefer my own standaards and Morales achieved throughout a lifetime of sociability, learning, cultural upbringing, experiencing emotion and feelings, reasoning, working and bondig with people.
It may not be sufficiënt to many. But it's honest and real.
Short reply: deal with it.

"I'd rather have it my opinion than one laid upon me that I disagree with".  Would the Nazi's not have felt the same way?  If you told the Nazi's that killing the Jews was wrong, then would they not also say 'I'd rather have it my opinion that one laid upon that I disagree with'.  You see the problem? 

A lifetime of sociability, learning, cultural upbringing, experiencing emotion and feelings, reasoning, and working with others is not ALWAYS honest and real. It is SOMETIMES honest and real but it does not necessarily demand it to be.  Therefore, on a purely atheistic worldview, it is impossible to truly know which moral standpoints are truly right and which are truly wrong, because there is no objective standard of morality.  My only side point-  Is that most cases of what would depict God of being cruel or unjust in the Bible are just cases of misunderstanding and misknowledge on what the text is saying and on the nature of God Himself.  Of course this is easier said than done.  However, if one has an open mind toward God's nature and what was going on in the Bible, then one MAY  come to the conclusion that God's 'immoral acts' were not immoral at all.

Quote from: hrdlr110 on March 06, 2015, 07:34:56 AM
I didn't refuse to answer your question - I just think your wrong, and that you won't be swayed because of your god. Your mind is closed to learnin - G'day

Fair enough.  And you do not have to reply to this, if you are done for the day.  But you did not answer my question in all do fairness.  I have been asking about objective morality.   I have said that an atheist cannot say what is right or wrong because everything the atheist says is just his/her subjective opinion.  Your last message showed you saying 'You know, the one that sat back and watched the holocaust happen right before his eyes and didn't lift a finger'.  This is not answering my question.  You are questioning God on what He did not do in reference to the Holocaust event.  However, you and I are actually talking about objective/subjective morality. The atheist cannot say that the Holocaust was actually wrong because all the atheist has is their subjective opinion.  You can argue about what YOU would have done if you were God, but these are two different topics.   Peace.   

So, depending on The context an immoral passage telling you to kill unbelievers or stone someone to death can be moral?

Also, what's your deal with nazi's? Hoping that mentioning them enough Will make is afraid living in a world without The immoral god a lot of them actually believed in ( or at least pretendet to, to justify their actions to The masses).

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 06, 2015, 07:51:11 AM
So, depending on The context an immoral passage telling you to kill unbelievers or stone someone to death can be moral?

Also, what's your deal with nazi's? Hoping that mentioning them enough Will make is afraid living in a world without The immoral god a lot of them actually believed in ( or at least pretendet to, to justify their actions to The masses).

1.  Depending on the historicity/context of the text, it can well be possible that those seemingly immoral texts no longer apply to us today.  That is what I am trying to say.

2.  I was just using the Nazi's as an example.  Sorry if I overkilled it.  I have never liked the argument about those who kill others under the name of God.  If the Nazi's truly believed in the Judeo-Christian God, then I would strongly argue that they would never have agreed to go along with the actions of the Holocaust.  If some of the Nazi's said they believed in God, but still helped out with the Holocaust, then I really do think that those specific Nazi's never truly understood God and His teachings.

Morality changes as God responds to public demand.

What is "morality"? Why is something "bad"? Why is something "good"? Why is it "morally" better to do A instead of B?

Personally, I am a moral nihilist.

I'm not an atheist. But I am agnostic.

What is my absolute, known foundation for morality? I've those about this a great deal when I left Christianity.

Let me explain something first.

Mankind is often thought to be a group of many individual organisms, but I began viewing us differently when I looked at ants and the larger cosmos. Ants are many individuals constituting one organism. The workers are the hand gatherers. The queen has the vagina. Know what I mean. Yet they are all one.

Mankind is the same. We are members of one anotherâ€"one organism. Our mutual survival necessitates that we look out for one another. Therefore, my morality should be based on what is good for myself and the whole.

How, then, does survival become the good? Is it good enough to say that that is just what I want?

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 06, 2015, 09:31:27 AM
Is it good enough to say that that is just what I want?

No.

But I ran out of time. Maybe more later.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 08:04:27 AM
1.  Depending on the historicity/context of the text, it can well be possible that those seemingly immoral texts no longer apply to us today.  That is what I am trying to say.

Explain to me, as someone whose native language isn't english and is therefor lost to subtle nuances and semantics, how you can claim that god's unchangeable word on absolute morality can apparently change from time to time and culture to culture and thus no longer apply though it needs to always apply if it is to be an absolute truth?

Morality is just a means of control, be it self-control when applied to yourself, or law when applied to each other. It stems from an evolved sensibility about how to behave, primarily toward other people. It is partly inherited, and partly learned. Thus some people have a better understanding than others of what is "right and wrong."  It is not a set of absolute one-size-fits all rules. The universe doesn't care who helps the elderly or who burns a pilot to death. Only other people care about that. Fortunately the majority of us have evolved a similar enough moral compass, that we can live together in relative peace. But when someone comes along, proclaiming the proper moral absolutes for us all, they have to rely on authority for their definitions. So they turn to the Holy Scriptures for their authority. The problem is that the Holy Scriptures are nothing more than the words of flawed men, with all there fears, misunderstandings, and personal opinions about good and bad. These men wanted to control the behavior of others, and so claimed the authority of God. But there is nothing absolute in morality.

So your inference is we get our morals from god? Which God? Yahweh/Jehovah? Allah? K'laam the Almighty?

Uh uh.

First, define it:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms:   ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"


Yes, morality is subjective. All the good Nazis condemning Jews were all good Christians. Hitler was Catholic and was highly superstitious in his beliefs. The fundamentalist Christians today are condemning gays and atheists wholesale. 50 years ago in the South they were condemning blacks and making them sit in the back of the bus.

Good Christians, every one.

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabians are beheading atheists and ISIS is throwing men accused of being gay off of buildings and kidnapping and raping teenage girls.

Highly religious, every one.

We on the other hand, godless heathens all of us, accept gay rights, LGBT rights, the rights of all people who legitimately deserve it, to live their lives as they see fit. And we condemn those who disadvantage women and keep them from their choice of life as they see fit

Bunch of godless heathens, every one.

Some religions and cultures accepted homosexuality. Many don't. Which god would you prefer?

The Codex Ur Mammu and the Codex Hammurabi, the first texts known that prescribe a system of laws, both predate the earliest writings of Judea and the 10 commandments. The commandments, which bear a striking resemblance to the Codex Hammurabi.

By the way, your 10 commandments doesn't condemn rape or slavery. Oops.

By all means, educate us about your morality.

To say that there is an objective morality is to first determine what your moral goals are. From the definitions given above, there IS NOT ONE INDICATION THAT MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. So if you make the claim for objective morality, you have to first give us the criteria for that objectivity.

Belief in god? Which god?

Don't kill? Don't kill who and for what reason? OK to kill people who don't believe what you do?

Don't rape? Bible says you can rape as long as you pay the father the bride price.

Don't steal? Islam says you can take from whoever they see as an infidel.

The bible condemns people to stoning for skipping the sabbath. Better send some righteous to drag out a christian from his house on Sunday because he preferred to watch a football game.

Get the point? Probably not.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 05:35:29 AM
Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

First off, not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. No label will automatically make an individual do good or bad. Our behavior as a species is in our evolution, not the labels we assign ourselves or others. "Atheist" is the "off" position on one claim. It is not a moral code, loyalty oath, political party or economic view. "Atheist" simply means "off" when it comes to claims of a god or gods. I have run into other atheists over the years who have other superstitions and conspiracies, and even others who hold economic views I do not find moral.

Human behavior evolutionary wise is simple to understand. We seek patterns, what we call moral is subjective, we see anything that gains us support and or resources as good, and anything that may be perceived as a threat as bad.

Outside that we are pretty universal in a range of behaviors. Friend and foe alike no matter the country have prisons and traffic lights. We value family and friends. We seek shelter and food. We don't like to have our families threatened, especially children. We don't like violence to our person or property. We like to defend ourselves from those threats.

We see the same behaviors in other primates and mammals. It is why you sometimes see a cat nursing puppies. But that morality also reflects the dark side of evolution. A male lion sometimes seeks out and kills rival cubs not of it's loins.

So it isn't so much a good think go ask atheists where they get their morals from because that varies from individual to individual. It would simply be better to ask the individual where they get them from. Ultimately our species in it's entire history has gotten it's morality from evolution, both in the morals we used to justify cruelty and compassion.

My values are based on Humanism. A Humanist would never support the Nazis.

Christians put God first, Humanists put people first.

Don't you love the apologist? God does the same horrific stuff that man does and it is "we cannot understand gods ultimate plan"…despite god himself saying that he made man in his image…. and they blame man for mirroring gods action by their own horrific actions because they mirror gods as immoral. Ah, god gets to rape and plunder and murder and made us in his image and them bitches and whines that we do as he does…kinda like the dad bitching about his son being too much like himself. Reminds me of a Ahhhnold line in "True Lies" when Jamie asks him if he has ever killed anyone: "Yes, but they were all bad people"…

LOL xians are fucking retarded.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 06, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
Explain to me, as someone whose native language isn't english and is therefor lost to subtle nuances and semantics, how you can claim that god's unchangeable word on absolute morality can apparently change from time to time and culture to culture and thus no longer apply though it needs to always apply if it is to be an absolute truth?

This is a great question, its cool to see that there are some people who use logic to come up with these rebuttals.  Here's my answer:  God's law never actually changed.  Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.  This would indicate the reason to why Jesus had to come into the world.  However, I am sure your more interested in the laws about slavery, and stoning non-virgin women as seen in the OT.  One possible answer is that God never condoned slavery, but simply 'allowed' these behaviors because they were so hard-driven into the culture of the people of that specific time.   Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Quote from: Brian37 on March 06, 2015, 11:03:11 AM
First off, not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. No label will automatically make an individual do good or bad. Our behavior as a species is in our evolution, not the labels we assign ourselves or others. "Atheist" is the "off" position on one claim. It is not a moral code, loyalty oath, political party or economic view. "Atheist" simply means "off" when it comes to claims of a god or gods. I have run into other atheists over the years who have other superstitions and conspiracies, and even others who hold economic views I do not find moral.

Human behavior evolutionary wise is simple to understand. We seek patterns, what we call moral is subjective, we see anything that gains us support and or resources as good, and anything that may be perceived as a threat as bad.

Outside that we are pretty universal in a range of behaviors. Friend and foe alike no matter the country have prisons and traffic lights. We value family and friends. We seek shelter and food. We don't like to have our families threatened, especially children. We don't like violence to our person or property. We like to defend ourselves from those threats.

So it isn't so much a good think go ask atheists where they get their morals from because that varies from individual to individual. It would simply be better to ask the individual where they get them from. Ultimately our species in it's entire history has gotten it's morality from evolution, both in the morals we used to justify cruelty and compassion.

First, I do not think I implied that a 'label' makes an individual do good or bad.  All theists and atheists are capable of doing good and bad.  My question was specifically for people who hold the worldview of atheism since I was curious on where an atheist believes he or she gets their morals from.  However, you seem to say that 'what we call moral is subjective', it varies from individual to individual.   So far I completely understand you.  For an individual who holds an atheistic worldview, it should be correct for that individual to say that morals are subjective by nature.  In that sense, morality does not objectively exist.  As humans die and new humans are born, morality may change throughout the years.  Thus it those new morals that will become what is right or wrong for the individual.

Quote from: stromboli on March 06, 2015, 11:00:17 AM
To say that there is an objective morality is to first determine what your moral goals are. From the definitions given above, there IS NOT ONE INDICATION THAT MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. So if you make the claim for objective morality, you have to first give us the criteria for that objectivity.

Belief in god? Which god?

Couldn't help but reply to this one.  Notice how I deleted the other half of what you wrote?  We are talking about the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. NOT about questionable teachings in the Bible.  In due time this may come up again, but I want to get at the heart of the nature of morality.  Notice how my original question was simply, "Where do atheists get there morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?".   You have perfectly answered that question by stating that morality is subjective and not objective.  'Right and wrong' do not actually exist, they just depend on whatever the human is thinking.  So I will ask another question:
Lets say hypothetically, that Germany won WWII and was able to brainwash the entire population that the Holocaust was actually a good thing.  The Germans would teach that in order to get rid of the filthy Jewish people, it was morally right to set up the concentration camps.  Now, in this hypothetical world we see that every human being believes that the Holocaust was a perfectly acceptable moral thing to do.  My question is, that since you think morality is subjective, you would agree that there is nothing wrong to this hypothetical world, right?

 

QuoteJesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Bad scholarship.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 07, 2015, 06:47:18 AM
Couldn't help but reply to this one.

You quoted Stromboli's question, but didn't answer it.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993"Where do atheists get there morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?".   You have perfectly answered that question by stating that morality is subjective and not objective.  'Right and wrong' do not actually exist, they just depend on whatever the human is thinking.

It is an evolved sensibility, not "whatever the human is thinking."

Quote from: JohnnyB1993So I will ask another question:
Lets say hypothetically... that every human being believes that the Holocaust was a perfectly acceptable moral thing to do.  My question is, that since you think morality is subjective, you would agree that there is nothing wrong to this hypothetical world, right?

Wrong. I would not agree, because my evolved sensibility tells me the Holocaust is not right. Not because God said so. And your hypothetical world will never be, because most others have evolved along similar paths, and have come to similar conclusions about the Holocaust.

Face the fact that morality is human, not divine. It needs to be free to adapt to a changing world and therefore cannot be codified into absolutes.

Also go back and answer my earlier post if you can. It's at the bottom of Page 2.

don't quote the bible. It is a work of fiction.

Hypothetically you are a lizard and this is the planet Urania. Don't talk hypothetically.

The question is whether morality is subjective or objective. It is subjective. There has been more than enough presented here to prove the point.

Your god doesn't exist, so any argument for or about your god is automatically void; btw, since you claim god exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove his/its existence. No one has ever done that, so you lose.

The bible is fiction
https://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

You are assuming any argument from a position that is wrong from the beginning.

You cannot prove the basis for your belief set is true.

So any argument you make is automatically invalid. Until you can prove the basis for your belief set, anything you say is questionable and to be disregarded.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 05:35:29 AM
Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

Morality comes from the fact that human beings are pack animals.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:45:49 AM
  You have no objective standard of morality.  You simply just belief that the Holocaust was wrong.  So I do not need God to know that the holocaust was wrong, but I DO need God to know that the Holocaust was truly and objectively wrong.

And how exactly do you know with such certainty what god says is moral and what god says is not moral?

It frightens me to the core that this is such a common question from believers.

Is the Bible seriously the only thing that prevents you from committing genocide?

Quote from: Mermaid on March 07, 2015, 09:21:50 AM
It frightens me to the core that this is such a common question from believers.

Is the Bible seriously the only thing that prevents you from committing genocide?

But genocide is okay in the bible when god commands it.

Quote from: leo on March 07, 2015, 09:26:39 AM
                                                                                                                                                    But genocide is okay in the bible when god commands it.

Right.

So ISIS  are the heroes and saints. They are doing the will of Alah killing all this people and using women as sex slaves. The bible says the same shit in the book of Exodus. So Alah and Yahveh are okay with believers killing rival tribes.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 07, 2015, 05:27:53 AM
This is a great question, its cool to see that there are some people who use logic to come up with these rebuttals.  Here's my answer:  God's law never actually changed.  Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.  This would indicate the reason to why Jesus had to come into the world.  However, I am sure your more interested in the laws about slavery, and stoning non-virgin women as seen in the OT.  One possible answer is that God never condoned slavery, but simply 'allowed' these behaviors because they were so hard-driven into the culture of the people of that specific time.   Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

QuoteMost scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.

"Most Scholars," is most unlikely. Certainly not most Jewish scholars.

As a longtime student of the Bible, I would say that there is no "point" to the Old Testament other than to fear God and obey his anointed ones. You have a preconceived notion about the Old Testament, that is colored by the New Testament, and your need to Justify your opinion that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy.

QuoteJesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

This is the worst example of biblical scholarship I have ever seen. You can't just disassemble and reassemble the thing to make it say something it doesn't. Divorce and the hardness of our hearts has to do with a reasonable precept, that some of us can't abide a mate for life because we are too "hard of heart." Slavery doesn't even fit the same dynamic for you to make that comparison, let alone is there any justification for this transposing of the phrases. And since you brought it up, how does that apply to stoning non-virgin women?

Which branch of the Christian-nut-tree did you fall off of that allows such an unsustainable exegesis to stand?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2015, 12:23:37 PM
Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

Yes

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 07, 2015, 02:09:35 PM

This is the worst example of biblical scholarship I have ever seen. You can't just disassemble and reassemble the thing to make it say something it doesn't. Divorce and the hardness of our hearts has to do with a reasonable precept, that some of us can't abide a mate for life because we are too "hard of heart." Slavery doesn't even fit the same dynamic for you to make that comparison, let alone is there any justification for this transposing of the phrases. And since you brought it up, how does that apply to stoning non-virgin women?

Which branch of the Christian-nut-tree did you fall off of that allows such an unsustainable exegesis to stand?

The same concept would apply to stoning non-virgin women, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to stone a non-virgin woman; but from the beginning it has not been this way".  I am not simply disassembling and reassembling lines in the Bible.  There is some logic behind what I am getting at.  Consider the hypothetical question, 'what if someone came to Jesus and asked him about slavery in the OT?'.  I am confident that Jesus' response to them would be similar in his response to those who asked about divorce in Matthew 19.  Consider the similarity between the two concepts of divorce and slavery.   In Matthew 19 Jesus is pretty much telling the Pharisees that it is God's will that no marriage end in divorce.  So then the Pharisees brought up the law of Moses in the OT.  The law stated that you can divorce your wife as long as you had a certificate for divorce.  Was Jesus trying to teach them something that contradicted God's will?  Jesus did not think so, as he replied that it was because of man's hardness of heart that God allowed them to divorce their wives all those years ago.  Can the same idea be applied to slavery?  If so this would mean that Old Testament laws allowing slavery or treating women in certain ways would not be perfect representations of God’s will â€" the way God would really like it. These were concessions on God’s part because of mankind's hardness of heart. 

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 06, 2015, 10:01:32 AM
Morality is just a means of control, be it self-control when applied to yourself, or law when applied to each other. It stems from an evolved sensibility about how to behave, primarily toward other people. It is partly inherited, and partly learned. Thus some people have a better understanding than others of what is "right and wrong."  It is not a set of absolute one-size-fits all rules. The universe doesn't care who helps the elderly or who burns a pilot to death. Only other people care about that. Fortunately the majority of us have evolved a similar enough moral compass, that we can live together in relative peace. But when someone comes along, proclaiming the proper moral absolutes for us all, they have to rely on authority for their definitions. So they turn to the Holy Scriptures for their authority. The problem is that the Holy Scriptures are nothing more than the words of flawed men, with all there fears, misunderstandings, and personal opinions about good and bad. These men wanted to control the behavior of others, and so claimed the authority of God. But there is nothing absolute in morality.

Wrong. I would not agree, because my evolved sensibility tells me the Holocaust is not right. Not because God said so. And your hypothetical world will never be, because most others have evolved along similar paths, and have come to similar conclusions about the Holocaust.

I have also added your comment about my hypothetical Nazi world into the quotation.   I quote you, "There is nothing absolute in morality".  Fair enough, morality is subjective, not objective.  However, in my hypothetical world I have stated that it is a world in which EVERYONE believes the that Holocaust was morally good.  I will take it one step further.  Lets say in this world, that EVERYONE had evolved along similar paths into believing that the Holocaust was morally good.  Everyone with their evolved sensibilities have allowed them to come to the conclusion that the Holocaust was good.  However, do you think this hypothetical world is still morally wrong?  If you do, then your thinking implies that absolute morality does exist.   

Apologetics is nothing but twisting and sidestepping.  It's as transparent as the political spin of any politician.  Is this taught in seminaries as something which should be held in high regard?  It's actually quite a shameful endeavor, in my opinion.

QuoteThe same concept would apply to stoning non-virgin women, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to stone a non-virgin woman; but from the beginning it has not been this way".  I am not simply disassembling and reassembling lines in the Bible.

And yet you just did it again. No passage in the bible makes such a statement. God didn't "permit" stoning, he commanded it.

QuoteThere is some logic behind what I am getting at. 

No, there is not. There is only rationalizing. You have a preconceived notion that the Old Testament agrees with the New Testament, and you're using the worst apologetics I've ever seen, to try and make it fit.

QuoteConsider the hypothetical question, 'what if someone came to Jesus and asked him about slavery in the OT?'.  I am confident that Jesus' response to them would be similar in his response to those who asked about divorce in Matthew 19.

You are confident? How does that matter?

QuoteConsider the similarity between the two concepts of divorce and slavery.

Divorce is a release from a vow. Slavery is forced labor. There is no similarity.

Face it Johnny, the Old Testament God was a capricious asshole.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 06:35:17 AM
I have also added your comment about my hypothetical Nazi world into the quotation.   I quote you, "There is nothing absolute in morality".  Fair enough, morality is subjective, not objective.  However, in my hypothetical world I have stated that it is a world in which EVERYONE believes the that Holocaust was morally good...do you think this hypothetical world is still morally wrong?  If you do, then your thinking implies that absolute morality does exist.

No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care.

You are asking if morality is objective or subjective, but you seem to be asking "Is objective morality objective or subjective?"

I didn't join This forum to debate Christianity. For crying out loud! The damn icon for the board is someone throwing away a cross.

We are a mission field for Jesus, folks. That is why we are being tormented before the fullness of time.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2015, 07:19:29 AM
No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care.

You are asking if morality is objective or subjective, but you seem to be asking "Is objective morality objective or subjective?"

I see.  So from your own sensibility, the hypothetical Nazi world is wrong (personally in your mind).  But you are not saying that the hypothetical world is objectively wrong.  It just is what it is.  Yes, no, maybe?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2015, 07:06:36 AM
No, there is not. There is only rationalizing. You have a preconceived notion that the Old Testament agrees with the New Testament, and you're using the worst apologetics I've ever seen, to try and make it fit.
You are confident? How does that matter?
Divorce is a release from a vow. Slavery is forced labor. There is no similarity.

Face it Johnny, the Old Testament God was a capricious asshole.

I should do a better job at explaining myself.  When I said 'consider the similarity between divorce and slavery' I did not mean that the words by definition are similar.   If I did, then there may be no hope for me haha.  What I meant was that the teaching Jesus has for divorce can be used to explain what his teaching on slavery may have been.  Its certainly not clear-cut, but I have no reason to think that the rationale is that far-fetched.  Jesus said-  Do not divorce   but the OT law said - You can divorce.  Is there a huge contradiction going on?  I do not think so, and I'll explain why.  Jesus answered the Pharisees in saying that God allowed divorce to occur due to people's hardness of heart.  Now did people in the OT really have hardened hearts?  Maybe some did, but what I think Jesus may be getting at is that the culture in OT times was quite different to ours today.  In fact, the culture of ancient people may have been so different that if God directly decreed 'You can never divorce' then the ruling may have been too radical for anyone to want to follow.  So God permitted divorce for the time being by allowing people to give a certificate of the divorce they wanted to do.  As this is how Jesus answered for this particular OT law, I simply do not think it is crazy to say that the same argument may go for slavery and other seemingly cruel OT laws.  These rulings were concessionary and not a perfect showing of God's true will. 

QuoteI see.  So from your own sensibility, the hypothetical Nazi world is wrong (personally in your mind).  But you are not saying that the hypothetical world is objectively wrong.  It just is what it is.  Yes, no, maybe?

No. The hypothetical world is all in your mind. It isn't objectively anything. Luckily we live in a world where most of us can walk down the street without fear, because the vast majority have similar enough morals that we don't harm each other. I think my position is clear. Don't try to twist it to say that I don't see anything wrong with the holocaust.

I think your argument has to proceed to the next phase, or I for one will lose interest.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2015, 07:51:40 AM
No. The hypothetical world is all in your mind. It isn't objectively anything. Luckily we live in a world where most of us can walk down the street without fear, because the vast majority have similar enough morals that we don't harm each other. I think my position is clear. Don't try to twist it to say that I don't see anything wrong with the holocaust.

I think your argument has to proceed to the next phase, or I for one will lose interest.

Ok, I am sorry, I am absolutely not trying to say that you 'do not see anything wrong with the holocaust'.  But just to say that the hypothetical world 'is all in your mind' misses the point I am trying to argue.   I say, imagine a world where everyone evolved into thinking that killing a certain group of people was morally right.  So eventually, people go through time in this hypothetical world and then the Holocaust happens.  Everyone would think it is right.  If this world truly did exist, I believe you have said that the Holocaust event would still be immoral.  How can that be though?  You said that morals come through our evolved sensibilities. The world we live in is where the majority of people of evolved to believe that the Holocaust was bad.  But what about a world where everyone evolves into believing that the Holocaust was right?  Is such an event still right or wrong? 

Already answered.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2015, 08:04:47 AM
Already answered.

'No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care'- Would this count as the answer you already gave?

Your position-
Morals derive from our evolved sensibilities about how to behave towards other people.  Our evolved sensibilities tell us that events such as the Holocaust are morally wrong. 

BUT- In a world where people's evolved sensibilities tell them that events such as  the Holocaust are right, would that make the Holocaust in that world right or wrong?  If morality is subjective by nature then the Holocaust in the fictional world is morally right because that is where peoples evolved sensibilities led them to believing.  If the Holocaust in the fictional world is wrong, then that implies the existence of objective morality.  This would also mean that morals do not come from our evolve sensibilities, because despite where people's evolved sensibilities have led them, the Holocaust in the fictional world is still wrong.  The question then becomes, if morality is thus objective, then where does it come from? 

QuoteIn a world where people's evolved sensibilities tell them that events such as  the Holocaust are right, would that make the Holocaust in that world right or wrong?

The problem with your question is this:

You are asking if,

in a world where the subjective morality of people tell them that a given action is morally right,

it is therefore objectively right. 

I have already stated that there is no objective right or wrong from an extra-human point of view. There is only our subjective understanding.

So, it is still not "Right" in either sense.

Not in the subjective sense because the morality I have evolved, tells me it's wrong,

and not in the objective sense, because the objective sense doesn't exist.

Do you finally understand my answer?

Let me offer a hypothetical world as well:

I would like you to consider a hypothetical world in which men have tried to control each other for millennia through the use of divine laws, given by men who claim, for one reason or another, to have the authority of God. Let's imagine that hypothetically these men give faulty, unsustainable, unpleasant, and inequitable laws that divide the whole world into sects, all claiming divine guidance. Let's further suppose that some of these sects decide theirs is the objective morality that must be enforced on all, and start killing members of other sects. Just hypothetically.

Quoteif morality is thus objective, then where does it come from

You're simply stupid.  Go to a daycare sometime, (that is if you're legally allowed to) observe the behavior of children. They take from others without permission, they will steal, they will assault others and if left alone, the strongest or simply the meanest will be the ruler. As parents or guardians we are responsible to teach proper behavior and morals. IF your POS god had any involvement we would still be knuckled draggers, (though it appears some of us still are)

I think he went to church. I also think he's been reading CS Lewis.

I have a confession to make.

I am God and you should start obeying me now. You can start by believing me even though there is no evidence.

If you don't do what I say, I'm going to come to your house for payback.

Wow! I really do sound like a monster.

Johnny, while I await your return, I want to clarify what I mean by an evolved sensibility. I am not talking about a simple instinct, but a value system that is part instinct, part parenting, part social example, part social pressure, part reading, and a lot of personal experience.

But if you claim an objective morality, what standard of objectivity are you using?  Buddhism and Hinduism are both older than Christianity and Islam. They have a very old and rich religious tradition, and a set of standards quite different than later religions. In the strictest sense Buddhists ought to be vegetarian but I know some that aren't. Hindus also, but I know there are some that aren't.
it doesn't matter what claims are made by any religion. What matters is the actual working situation in terms of how moral behavior is applied. If one belief set applies one standard and another applies another standard, then objectivity in the real world doesn't exist.

It also goes back to the validity of your belief set. Like applying standards of behavior towards LGBT people. Various sects of Christianity have different standards and application of morality towards them, so there is not consensus even within the religion. We as atheists can show that there are serious problems in the validity of the bible, existence of Jesus and so forth. So regardless of any claims made, if the actual validity of the religion is suspect, how can you claim that any concept derived from it is valid?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 08:16:27 AM
The question then becomes, if morality is thus objective, then where does it come from? 

Human lives have inherent value to other humans and human suffering is inherently wrong. No one has to tell you suffering is bad, as a human organism you know you don't like pain. Humans are social creatures, we care about each other and we don't like seeing other humans, or even things that appear human, in pain. Morality was not handed down from a god, it evolved up and is part of what makes humans what humans are. Despite culture, people care about themselves, they care about other people and they don't like to suffer. The problem is, generally speaking, people care about their children's suffering, their own suffering, their kin, their social group and then other people around them and they will sacrifice the wellbeing of others the protect themselves or their group from suffering. This doesn't make the suffering of others right, it is still fundamentally wrong. Genocide, rape and slavery are always wrong because they always cause human suffering.

It's all been said before:

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 07, 2015, 12:23:37 PM
Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 06:01:25 AM
Yes

It's mathematically impossible to know everything.

If god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, etc, then HE created humans with flaws.  You cannot use the excuse that the old testament god allowed humans to have slaves because it was so ingrained in their culture if you believe god is Omni-everything, and here is why:

God creates humans with the traits that would cause them to own slaves, and then he allows them to own slaves because it is a deep part of their culture/nature.
Do you see the circular logic you are using here?  Not to mention the cherry picking, because he forbids other things that are equally ingrained in human culture or nature. 

You don't blame God for that rule or for that human behavior, you blame the humans, even though you admit your believe your god is Omni-everything.
This is circular logic at it's absolute worst.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 08, 2015, 11:35:00 AM
...and human suffering is inherently wrong.

Agree with everything you said, including this, if you reinforce your earlier qualifier, by adding, "to humans." Otherwise it sounds like you are drawing an objective morality from a subjective one, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

There is no "objective" without measurement. We can't measure the "super natural." e.g. "God" or a "God's words." Therefore, saying "God" gives objective morality is false. It's quite simple really.

Quote from: Aletheia on March 08, 2015, 11:47:43 AM
It's all been said before:

Don't rush to the end, I don't get to chew on one very often! :keel:

In addition God's law cannot be objective because it's subjective.  I pretty sure the definition of subjective is something that changes when it is perceived differently in different contexts, and that is how God gives out laws.  Thou shalt not kill... except that sometimes it's OK, specifically when I say it's OK.  Thou shalt not lie [God]... except when converting non believers [Paul].

However, you look at it, it's subjective.  It's simply not objective based on a claim.

Quote from: aitm on March 08, 2015, 09:36:38 AM
You're simply stupid.  Go to a daycare sometime, (that is if you're legally allowed to) observe the behavior of children. They take from others without permission, they will steal, they will assault others and if left alone, the strongest or simply the meanest will be the ruler. As parents or guardians we are responsible to teach proper behavior and morals. IF your POS god had any involvement we would still be knuckled draggers, (though it appears some of us still are)

I cannot see how this reply answers my question at all.  If morality is subjective, then it seems far to say that morality derives from somewhere (perhaps from human evolution/thoughts?).  If morality is objective, then it seems fair to say that that morality derives from somewhere.   That is all am asking.  What does your example of the behavior of children prove?  Morality can still be subjective, that is whatever system the children come up with then it would be right.  Or morality can be objective, in which no matter how much the children act in a certain way, there still remains a  true right way for them to behave. 

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 06:01:25 AM
Yes

QuoteThis is a great question, its cool to see that there are some people who use logic to come up with these rebuttals.  Here's my answer:  God's law never actually changed.  Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.  This would indicate the reason to why Jesus had to come into the world.  However, I am sure your more interested in the laws about slavery, and stoning non-virgin women as seen in the OT.  One possible answer is that God never condoned slavery, but simply 'allowed' these behaviors because they were so hard-driven into the culture of the people of that specific time.   Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

So why is he so inneficiënt; by your own admission? I think 'most scholars' is probably a gross exageration. But fine, let's give you the benefit of the doubt because you're not claiming all scholars that are, have been and will be. This means that what you believe to be perhaps the most important tool to find out what is 'moral' or not in absolute terms is inneficiënt if your God has omnipotence and omniscience. In other words he wants people to misinterpret the Bible and to misjudge what is moral or not. If he didn't, he would have willed it some other way. He would have given us a source to find what is moral and what is not that is undeniable and perfectly clear to all. Screw the medium even, an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerfull God would have instilled this wisdom in our minds from the get-go and have bypassed a set of guide to morality that would later be used to convince other societies that their view on morality is fundamentally wrong.
He could have instilled in us all the same moral principles, the same values, the same inherrent knowledge that A is moral and B is immoral. But what do we find? These views differ from society to society and individual to individual. So why would he prefer to create humans that are incapable of being morally right on their own and incapable of following the laws he sets out for them, when he could just as easily have made them 'better'. Why would he allow all those who went before the OT to live without his guidance? Why would he give us only the OT for such a long time and purposefully allow those who lived before the NT to draw strenght from his commandments and live in such immoral ways and commit such heinous crimes? Why would he wait for so long before 'blessing' us with the NT? Why would he even then allow so much time and lives to go by before the entire world has even heard of them? Why would he make it so that even now some don't know of Jesus Christ (though a vast minority) and so many have lived and died with a faulty view on morality and lacking the knowledge of the true set of moral guidelines? Why doesn't he make a more persuasive argument so that if you start to think about it, it actually makes sense ? Why do his words fail to persuade someone who isn't indoctrinated this stuff from birth on, even once?
Note that this isn't a question of free will. God must have purposefully designed this world knowing that most people in history wouldn't know what his word on morality and thus the hypothetical 'objective morality' is. He could have created them with free will but a universal inherent knowledge that agrees with all other humans on what is right and what is wrong. To say he couldn't do this or couldn't have foreseen this problem is to disavow your premises. So, in case you believe in hell, your God made his creation and created me and most of my friends here with the knowledge that when you come knocking on this site we wouldn't be convinced by what you're selling. Nor by what others proclaim who hold similar views to yours. He thus created us to burn, knowing in advance that we would and that we would never turn to him before it was too late. If that being spawns 'objective morality' than your 'objective morality' is one I wouldn't want to live by even if it were to exist. Say you are a different breed of Christian and that you believe we will all be saved after we die and that the gates of hell will be empty, then still the question remains as to why all this hassle? Why allow all this hardship? Why create a world which would lead to genocides and holocausts and raping and pillaging and fighting and sociopaths when he could have created a world in which better humans would have known his will and all could and would have followed it by their own choosing? God must have willed evil into existance. He must have chosen to make people suffer at the hands of other people while he could just as easily have prevented it without desecrating humanity's free will.
You can puzzle in the Bible all you want, replacing passages and making up for God's inexcusable incompetence in showing us that objective morality exists and what it is exaclty. You can change words in verses to your hearts content, it makes no difference to me. Be my guest and find solace in your ancient and to me subjectively immoral collection of man-made books. But the moment you tell me that objective morality exists and that this therefore must coincide with your God's will because he is all-loving while he is on top of that all-knowing and all-powerfull, I'll ask you to think of the internal inconcistency of your claims. Because I'm not taking moral advice from someone who decided from the get-go that he'd create psychopaths who would fail his rules and murder, rape and torture other human beings and would then content himself with punishing that psychopath for eternity. It's an inexcusable way to create the world if you could create it any way you wanted and know what to do to make it much better, with your objective morality in mind. Unless, this objective morality is extremely immoral in my subjective opinion.

Whenever I run with the Christian hypothesis, it's not long before I hit a brick wall.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2015, 08:35:00 AM
You are asking if, in a world where the subjective morality of people tell them that a given action is morally right, it is therefore objectively right.  I have already stated that there is no objective right or wrong from an extra-human point of view. There is only our subjective understanding. So, it is still not "Right" in either sense. Not in the subjective sense because the morality I have evolved, tells me it's wrong, and not in the objective sense, because the objective sense doesn't exist.
Do you finally understand my answer?

I am not talking about a simple instinct, but a value system that is part instinct, part parenting, part social example, part social pressure, part reading, and a lot of personal experience.

I think I do.  You clearly explain that in the hypothetical world, all those who think that the Holocaust is right would in fact be wrong.  It would not be right in the subjective sense because the morality you have evolved tells you its wrong.  My only issue is that what do you have to offer to give credible reason to belief YOUR subjective morality?  Is it your evolved sensibility due to part instinct, parenting, reading, and a lot of personal experience.  I do not see how these are good factors to determine good morals.  If someone grew up with the parenting, social pressure, and personal experience that it was ok to lie and steal things, then by that person's subjective morality they would in essence be right.  I think it is clear to see that people's subjective morals around the world contradict each other.  How do we come to determine then which subjective morality is the best?

Quote from: Jason78 on March 08, 2015, 12:59:21 PM
It's mathematically impossible to know everything.

I assume you are saying that it is mathematically impossible for 'God' to know everything.  Sorry if I misquote you.  However, if I did not then can you please give me a reason to why it would be impossible for God to know everything? 

Quote from: Mr.ObviousDo you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993
Yes

Why?

doesn't matter. The base issue is the validity of your beliefs. If we can find them invalid or flawed, everything else is pointless. And you keep making hypothetical situations. Show us in the real world where an objective morality has ever been applied and agreed upon by all cultures. Answer: it hasn't

You can't base a real moral code, objective or otherwise, on an assumption, which is all reilgious belief really is.

Morality comes from human society.  Each society decides what is moral and what is not.  The only source of that is people.  And the majority of the people within a group determine what a moral value is.  For each society, no matter how big or small, one can find a different set of morals.  And even within societies, there is a huge array of thoughts about what a moral value is.  In the USA, we have a constitution that attempted to define what our moral values should be in a legal way.  That morals are not static or constant, the amendment system was included with the constitution so that it could change with the society.  The static part of the constitution is that it establishes the law and that law is to be applied equally (in theory).

So, what a moral value is takes  human thought and consideration.  It is not easy to reach common ground.  It takes effort.  There are those who want that struggle to be eliminated or turned over to a higher power.  That is usually some 'holy' scripture in which the word of god is delivered.  But none of them are clear nor universally accepted, even among believers.  Ironically, there is no universal accepted moral values within that group, either.  If there was some agreement, there would not  be 10,000 different baptist sects, for example.

And so we are left with the fact that moral values change with the years and groups.  It has always been so and will always be so.  People will make up the morals of whatever group they belong.

:popcorn:

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 07:11:38 PM
I do not see how these are good factors to determine good morals.  If someone grew up with the parenting, social pressure, and personal experience that it was ok to lie and steal things, then by that person's subjective morality they would in essence be right.

Indeed they would. And history is full of examples of this. Take slavery for instance. Slavery was considered morally right and acceptable for centuries. in fact there is a certain ancient book which says a bit about slavery and what one should and should not do when it comes to human slaves. And though I'm certainly no expert, I don't believe it says anywhere in that book that owning and keeping slaves is something that should never be done under any circumstances. That book? The bible. Perhaps you've heard of it.

So if you're going to try to argue that true morality can only exist if god exists, then you've got some explaining to do. Because either slavery is moral or your all knowing infallible god made a mistake when he put his words in a little book called the bible.

QuoteI think it is clear to see that people's subjective morals around the world contradict each other.  How do we come to determine then which subjective morality is the best?

The exact same way we've always done it. By each of us individually figuring out what works for us. Whether that be via our upbringing and experience or via some completely fictitious stories written by ancient goat herders and attributed to a fictitious supernatural being. Keep in mind that there was a time when the bible didn't yet exist and no one on this planet knew who jesus was. And yet people still managed to survive and thrive for countless generations until then. Societies rose and fell then as they continued to do after.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 08, 2015, 07:01:10 PM
So why is he so inneficiënt; by your own admission? I think 'most scholars' is probably a gross exageration. But fine, let's give you the benefit of the doubt because you're not claiming all scholars that are, have been and will be. This means that what you believe to be perhaps the most important tool to find out what is 'moral' or not in absolute terms is inneficiënt if your God has omnipotence and omniscience. In other words he wants people to misinterpret the Bible and to misjudge what is moral or not. If he didn't, he would have willed it some other way. He would have given us a source to find what is moral and what is not that is undeniable and perfectly clear to all. Screw the medium even, an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerfull God would have instilled this wisdom in our minds from the get-go and have bypassed a set of guide to morality that would later be used to convince other societies that their view on morality is fundamentally wrong.

He could have instilled in us all the same moral principles, the same values, the same inherrent knowledge that A is moral and B is immoral. But what do we find? These views differ from society to society and individual to individual. So why would he prefer to create humans that are incapable of being morally right on their own and incapable of following the laws he sets out for them, when he could just as easily have made them 'better'. Why would he allow all those who went before the OT to live without his guidance? Why would he give us only the OT for such a long time and purposefully allow those who lived before the NT to draw strenght from his commandments and live in such immoral ways and commit such heinous crimes? Why would he wait for so long before 'blessing' us with the NT? Why would he even then allow so much time and lives to go by before the entire world has even heard of them? Why would he make it so that even now some don't know of Jesus Christ (though a vast minority) and so many have lived and died with a faulty view on morality and lacking the knowledge of the true set of moral guidelines? Why doesn't he make a more persuasive argument so that if you start to think about it, it actually makes sense ? Why do his words fail to persuade someone who isn't indoctrinated this stuff from birth on, even once?

Note that this isn't a question of free will. God must have purposefully designed this world knowing that most people in history wouldn't know what his word on morality and thus the hypothetical 'objective morality' is. He could have created them with free will but a universal inherent knowledge that agrees with all other humans on what is right and what is wrong. To say he couldn't do this or couldn't have foreseen this problem is to disavow your premises. So, in case you believe in hell, your God made his creation and created me and most of my friends here with the knowledge that when you come knocking on this site we wouldn't be convinced by what you're selling. Nor by what others proclaim who hold similar views to yours. He thus created us to burn, knowing in advance that we would and that we would never turn to him before it was too late. If that being spawns 'objective morality' than your 'objective morality' is one I wouldn't want to live by even if it were to exist. Say you are a different breed of Christian and that you believe we will all be saved after we die and that the gates of hell will be empty, then still the question remains as to why all this hassle? Why allow all this hardship? Why create a world which would lead to genocides and holocausts and raping and pillaging and fighting and sociopaths when he could have created a world in which better humans would have known his will and all could and would have followed it by their own choosing? God must have willed evil into existance. He must have chosen to make people suffer at the hands of other people while he could just as easily have prevented it without desecrating humanity's free will.
You can puzzle in the Bible all you want, replacing passages and making up for God's inexcusable incompetence in showing us that objective morality exists and what it is exaclty. You can change words in verses to your hearts content, it makes no difference to me. Be my guest and find solace in your ancient and to me subjectively immoral collection of man-made books. But the moment you tell me that objective morality exists and that this therefore must coincide with your God's will because he is all-loving while he is on top of that all-knowing and all-powerfull, I'll ask you to think of the internal inconcistency of your claims. Because I'm not taking moral advice from someone who decided from the get-go that he'd create psychopaths who would fail his rules and murder, rape and torture other human beings and would then content himself with punishing that psychopath for eternity. It's an inexcusable way to create the world if you could create it any way you wanted and know what to do to make it much better, with your objective morality in mind. Unless, this objective morality is extremely immoral in my subjective opinion.

Paragraph 1:  'In other words he wants people to misinterpret the Bible and to misjudge what is moral or not.'  I took this as an important saying from the first paragraph.  If one tried to take in the entire Bible as a whole, then I do not think you would come to the conclusion that God wants people to misinterpret the Bible.  I would say that slavery is intrinsically wrong and I also think that God believes that slavery is intrinsically wrong.  How can this be?  I have already said that God allowed slavery in the OT because God decides to work with people depending on the culture context that they are born in.  Slavery was a very big thing in ancient times, so God allowed it to occur.  I cannot tell you why God allowed this act for some hundred years.  I do not know.  I do know that in the New Covenant God has supposedly established a new set of living with humans.  This new set of living is one that should have humans to try and conform more towards the true will of God.  No longer holding slaves would surely be one of them.  So it is the final covenant in the NT that Jesus gives to people which one should focus more on than the old laws from the OT. 
Paragraph 2: 'Why do his words fail to persuade someone who isn't indoctrinated this stuff from birth on, even once?'- This is sort of the point that I was trying to get at with slavery.  In the OT days, if God just directly gave people His true will 'though shall not have slaves' then perhaps the majority of people would not be persuaded and so would not follow Him.  If God really does exist, then would everyone be immediately persuaded by God's word upon hearing it?  Probably not, it would take time to understand what God is actually getting at.  One would have to try and be in a relationship with God, but relationships take time so no one would immediately on spot convert to theism upon hearing God's word (maybe).  But anyways....  To address your points in your second paragraph, why would God create us with the ability to not follow His laws?  This is where I am going to mention love, and perhaps you'll roll your eyes upon reading this, but just here me out.  Life is NOT about following God's law 100%, but about loving God with all your heart.  Many theists disagree with this notion, but I understand that your not a theist.  So, God wants to have a relationship with you, He wants us to love Him. Ok who cares then right?  Well, would you agree that love is much better if it is chosen rather than forced?  Is it not better to have your parents chose to love you for just who you are, rather than you forcing them to love you through some means?  And quickly, about your mention on the NT.  I don't know.  Sorry, I just have tons of speculation.  I do think that God reveals Himself one way or another to everyone at some point in their lives.  But again this is speculation.  Anyways, never think that someone walks into Hell 'blindfolded', its just not true.
Paragraph 3:   If you were God, and wanted to create the universe and humans.  How would you do it differently than the God of the Bible?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 07:11:38 PM...My only issue is that what do you have to offer to give credible reason to belief YOUR subjective morality?

I'm not, at the moment, trying to convince you that my particular set of morals is the one you should believe. My morality is generally humanistic. I don't usually codify it. But the Golden Rule comes as close as anything to expressing it in a teachable form.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 08, 2015, 07:11:38 PM
How do we come to determine then which subjective morality is the best?

That is a matter of conscience. "Best" is subjective.

Subjective morality isn't as scary as it might sound. As I have said before, the vast majority of people have a very similar morality. They wont rob you or kill you. They are just humans who have learned how to get along with other humans.

The problem often comes when some extreme ideology gets into their heads, and overrides their nature in favor of some higher calling. Then they can be persuaded to do things that they wouldn't normally do, in the name of a religion, or a political cause.

QuoteHow do we come to determine then which subjective morality is the best?

Think about this one, Johnny: How would we determine what objective morality is best, except through the same subjective criteria?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 09, 2015, 03:04:55 AM
Paragraph 1:  'In other words he wants people to misinterpret the Bible and to misjudge what is moral or not.'  I took this as an important saying from the first paragraph.  If one tried to take in the entire Bible as a whole, then I do not think you would come to the conclusion that God wants people to misinterpret the Bible.  I would say that slavery is intrinsically wrong and I also think that God believes that slavery is intrinsically wrong.  How can this be?  I have already said that God allowed slavery in the OT because God decides to work with people depending on the culture context that they are born in.  Slavery was a very big thing in ancient times, so God allowed it to occur.  I cannot tell you why God allowed this act for some hundred years.  I do not know.  I do know that in the New Covenant God has supposedly established a new set of living with humans.  This new set of living is one that should have humans to try and conform more towards the true will of God.  No longer holding slaves would surely be one of them.  So it is the final covenant in the NT that Jesus gives to people which one should focus more on than the old laws from the OT. 
Paragraph 2: 'Why do his words fail to persuade someone who isn't indoctrinated this stuff from birth on, even once?'- This is sort of the point that I was trying to get at with slavery.  In the OT days, if God just directly gave people His true will 'though shall not have slaves' then perhaps the majority of people would not be persuaded and so would not follow Him.  If God really does exist, then would everyone be immediately persuaded by God's word upon hearing it?  Probably not, it would take time to understand what God is actually getting at.  One would have to try and be in a relationship with God, but relationships take time so no one would immediately on spot convert to theism upon hearing God's word (maybe).  But anyways....  To address your points in your second paragraph, why would God create us with the ability to not follow His laws?  This is where I am going to mention love, and perhaps you'll roll your eyes upon reading this, but just here me out.  Life is NOT about following God's law 100%, but about loving God with all your heart.  Many theists disagree with this notion, but I understand that your not a theist.  So, God wants to have a relationship with you, He wants us to love Him. Ok who cares then right?  Well, would you agree that love is much better if it is chosen rather than forced?  Is it not better to have your parents chose to love you for just who you are, rather than you forcing them to love you through some means?  And quickly, about your mention on the NT.  I don't know.  Sorry, I just have tons of speculation.  I do think that God reveals Himself one way or another to everyone at some point in their lives.  But again this is speculation.  Anyways, never think that someone walks into Hell 'blindfolded', its just not true.
Paragraph 3:   If you were God, and wanted to create the universe and humans.  How would you do it differently than the God of the Bible?

So now your God is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?

It seems to me you don't understand the ramifications of your hypothesis. God could have chosen to create a world in which better people would have lived. In which rape, murder, torture, war, peadofilia, diseases, ... never occured. He could have created this without violating our free will. But he chose to create the world in such a way that these things would occur. To say he didn't means saying that something happened outside of his will. That's impossible for the omnipotent en omniscient creator. His inability to make the bible such a clear and indesputable moral guideline, therefore, is by his choosing. He chose not to make it a universally clear and known text. He must've been able to make it one, or he's not omnipotent. And he knew that by making it in this way there would be those that remained inconvinced, or he's not omniscient. Which mean he purposefully chose the Creation in which people would not be convinced by his words, while he could have made one in which everyone chose freely to accept and follow his rules and acknowledge his existance and love him. But he chose not to. So somehow his set of omnibenevolence means creating sheep that he knows will be lost.

And we agree that people don't walk into hell blindfolded, but I suspect we differ on the reasons why this is so. In your case; sorry but millions of Indians, Africans, Asians, Australians, Europeans, ... never heard of Jesus Christ or Yahweh or your supposed 'objective set of morality' in their lifetimes. So unless you advocate that the split-second before someone dies God stops time and has a one-on-one chitchat, I don't know how you could think that. And even if you believe in the last-second-one-on-one there is as much credit to that idea as there is to the Easter Bunny.

And yes. I'm not omnibenevolent, but if I were omniscient and omnipresent I'd like to think I could come up with a world which didn't violate free will, allowed it's creatures to love me should they choose so and that didn't include leukemia, cancer, overpopulation, ecological disasters, sociopaths, rapists, pedophiles, aids, malaria, serial-killers, wars, torturers, sexism, racism, false religions, vulcanic eruptions, alzheimers, parkinsons, and many more on a long-ass list. And if I couldn't avoid these making these without violating my creations' free will I would either not be omniscient, omnipotent or certainly not omnibenevolent.

And yes, I would prefer it if my parents  wanted me to love them from my own choosing rather than being manipulated or forced into it. But tell you what. If my parents are obviously good people, which they coincidentaly are, I'll do so. But I won't love them from my own choosing if they knowingly allow my brother to rape and murder. I won't love them if they sit by and whatch him close the door before performing his horrible act and simply say; I'll let you do this but hear us when you do we'll punish you afterward! And I certainly wouldn't love them if they'd given him ambigious teachings on wether or not it's okay to rape or murder beforehand. And most definitely not if they created him in such a way that they knew he'd rape and murder later on in his life.
I wouldn't love my parents either if they had the ability to create me in such a way, for example through scientific procedures, that they could plan out my entire personality beforehand and then punished me for being me. If my parents chose to engineer me in such a way that I would not accept them as my parents and would never love them and they feel that gives them the right to torture me for eternity (perhaps again through scientific advances if immortality were possible); I could still not love them. And I wouldn't if I could. I find it immoral if you create something you know you'll make suffer for eternity because you purposefully designed it to be flawed and knew full well it wouldn't live by your rules or acknowledge your existance. And if that kind of morality which advocates such a system is the hypothetical 'objective morality' you speak of, than my subjective morality says it stinks. And you'll just have to excuse me for trying to be a better person than your God.

Here's something else to think about, Johnny: You yourself have shown a propensity to pick and choose, at least a little, what commands of God apply to us from the Bible. So then what are your objective criteria for deciding what parts of the Bible to follow (love thy neighbor), and what parts you can violate (stoning)?

If your honest you will find that your morality is subjective too. You use your own conscience to figure out what is acceptable, even from God. And your conscience has grown or evolved from a combination of factors, like anyone else's.

After reading more of what most people are saying, it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it. I think it was Solomon Zorn who said something to the effect of, "they are just people who learned to get along." Could morality be the simple, emergent product of how people have learned to get along? Then someone comes along and takes that practical wisdom and makes a god out of it so they now have a divine authority with which to demand behavior that will benefit them according to their values.

Morality has much to do with values. Wherever there is value, there will moral rules to protect it.

The religious claim is really just one that proclaims ultimate value. Ultimate value is ultimate worthâ€"i.e. worthy of worship. If something has ultimate value, then human behavior should accord with what is valued.

To me, this seems to be what morality is at this moment.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 09, 2015, 04:27:53 PM
After reading more of what most people are saying, it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it. I think it was Solomon Zorn who said something to the effect of, "they are just people who learned to get along." Could morality be the simple, emergent product of how people have learned to get along?

That's a very simplified perspective, but your not wrong. I called it an evolved sensibility, meaning it has come through the ages as we adapt to social interaction. It is passed on in our genetic disposition as well as learned behavior.

I think that qualifies as an emergent property.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 09, 2015, 04:27:53 PM
Morality has much to do with values. Wherever there is value, there will moral rules to protect it.

The religious claim is really just one that proclaims ultimate value. Ultimate value is ultimate worthâ€"i.e. worthy of worship. If something has ultimate value, then human behavior should accord with what is valued.

To me, this seems to be what morality is at this moment.

In a similar vein, I've always said that the one thing all definitions of love have in common, is that they all hold an object of elevated value. The degree of love depends on the value of the object, from your subjective viewpoint. It almost makes passion reasonable to me.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 09, 2015, 04:27:53 PM
it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it.

IT really is this simple. If a god imparted morality we could shit babies that would share and play with strangers immediately, but no, every child born has to be taught "morals".

Now if we took 40 little rug-rats and placed them in a large forest it would not take long for two things to happen. One, the most dominant one will use that power for their own benefit and he/she=he will start to gather followers who can gain the crumbs from his droppings. Then soon among those who are at the lower end of the scale will start to work in concert for the sake of themselves under the guise of altruism. It is better to share a little with another so he will share some with you, this becomes morality among them. A give and take and shared protection, they gather others and soon you have your two sides. Depending on how much stronger the toughest really is and how needy the rest are, it won't take long for a conflict to either establish a new order and a stable type of morality by shared responsibility or it will become a "monarchy" ruled by one and he alone will determine the fate and allowance of the others, but this will/has/and always will spawn a succession of attempts to usurp the "throne".

Morality is easy to see and study. Most of it is simple common sense to understand, but to religious 'tards they think god diddit.

Quote from: aitm on March 09, 2015, 05:41:22 PM
IT really is this simple. If a god imparted morality we could shit babies that would share and play with strangers immediately, but no, every child born has to be taught "morals".

Now if we took 40 little rug-rats and placed them in a large forest it would not take long for two things to happen. One, the most dominant one will use that power for their own benefit and he/she=he will start to gather followers who can gain the crumbs from his droppings. Then soon among those who are at the lower end of the scale will start to work in concert for the sake of themselves under the guise of altruism. It is better to share a little with another so he will share some with you, this becomes morality among them. A give and take and shared protection, they gather others and soon you have your two sides. Depending on how much stronger the toughest really is and how needy the rest are, it won't take long for a conflict to either establish a new order and a stable type of morality by shared responsibility or it will become a "monarchy" ruled by one and he alone will determine the fate and allowance of the others, but this will/has/and always will spawn a succession of attempts to usurp the "throne".

Morality is easy to see and study. Most of it is simple common sense to understand, but to religious 'tards they think god diddit.

This, of course, leads to the question of what has any intrinsic value. Many philosophers have thrown their hands up in the air and say, "What's the point?" Does life have any intrinsic/objective value? Mind you, only people value things. Beyond that, there is the cosmic, impersonal ecosystem of all things.

the only way you can have a consensus objective morality is to have an egalitarian society where there is universally equal access to all things. Barring that, subjectivity is a guarantee; there will always be haves and have nots. There will always be those who receive more, achieve more and expect rewards. And conversely always be those who believe that there are people who don't deserve it.

Witness the Christian lawmakers who actively work to deny people in poverty or single mother homes welfare, even school lunch. Any Christian claiming  an objective morality can only do so by being totally blind to their own religion.

Quote from: stromboli on March 09, 2015, 08:16:48 PM
Any Christian claiming  an objective morality can only do so by being totally blind to their own religion.

...or to other denominations of their own religion.

Even in Christianity, morality is subjective. Although many Christian denominations would say they subscribe to the Bible as their absolute authority, what they get out of reading it is pretty subjective. One interprets the Bible one way and another does so another way.

If a believer finds anyone who agrees with them, that person is right. If the same believer finds anyone who does not agree, that person is wrong. Who is the measure of right in this scenario? God in the Bible or that believer?  Answer: That believer. Of course, that believer would go on to say that they are not in charge because such and such mandate is from God. "See?" they say, "it is written in the Bible right here." Later, that same person (the one who has objective truth, you see) grows in their sanctification and learns that his understanding is wrong. They change their mind. Learning. Well, now they really have the objective this time. This is how a believer grows up. The whole time; mind you, they have objective truth.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 09, 2015, 06:06:57 PM? Mind you, only people value things.

yeah, I have to disagree with that, the examples of self sacrifice among animals for no other reason than the survival of another is well documented. If your point is that only humans value things such as a teddy bear, again I would argue that many animals favor inanimate objects that certainly suggest they "value" things. But keep going, I am enjoying your thinking process.

Quote from: aitm on March 09, 2015, 09:43:27 PM
yeah, I have to disagree with that, the examples of self sacrifice among animals for no other reason than the survival of another is well documented. If your point is that only humans value things such as a teddy bear, again I would argue that many animals favor inanimate objects that certainly suggest they "value" things. But keep going, I am enjoying your thinking process.

Thanks. That is what I am doingâ€"thinking out loud.

I used to own a dog. I recall him expressing value when presented with food.

I think what the OP is missing is that morality is still subjective even with god. After all try getting a group of different christians to agree 100% across the board what the bible meant by this or that. Also if the bible has the ultimate guide to morality then why was it so misused to excuse bad behavior? Such as slavery as one example. I'm sure other people can add to the list.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 09, 2015, 09:50:25 PM
Thanks. That is what I am doingâ€"thinking out loud.

I used to own a dog. I recall him expressing value when presented with food.

I used to say I owned dogs.  But I no longer do--I have furry children.  Why say that?  Because they are much more than what I considered a 'dog' when I was growing up.  Mind you, I've always loved animals, but thought that dogs were really pretty much living by rote.  All dogs were basically the same.  I have owned/been owned, by almost a dozen dogs in my life.  And each and every one was different and had different values.  Some loved toys and some ignored them.  Some were dedicated watchdogs and some not.  All picked a principal person to be around most.  But they also showed great love for those who were in the 'family' to varying degrees.  Each interacted within their environment differently.  All had differing values--differing personalities.  Animals are much more complex than we have given them credit for. 

At its heart, morality is concerned with expedient relations. I'm sure, IF given a voice and a certain wherewithal, a cow would not think we were moral creatures. How did we consider the machines in the Matrix movie? Monsters? Evil? Certainly not good! And to the Muslim radicals, we are all a bunch of evil people. Therefore, morals, at the most basic level, have to to with the subjective perspective of an individual.

Yet, at the same time, the same people who have their own differing, subjective opinions form a population that generally agrees on many issues. For instance, most of the population agrees that it is wrong to murder someone. This is that emergent quality I noted earlier.

For the Christian to say that the world is going to blow up or get worse because unbelievers cannot point to an absolutely objective, moral foundation dismisses that emergent quality I just mentioned. That emergent quality is formed out billions of subjective and differing opinions.

The words that seem to be lurking behind the polite question in the OP are, "What is the ultimate foundation of your morality? What right do you have to your moral claims?" Because values have so much to do with how we define our morals, asking where I derive my ultimate moral authority or ultimate moral foundation is like asking what authority I have to be alive with different preferences and various tastes. As I understand it, my morals are an expression of what I value. This, I believe, where EVERYONE gets their morals.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 10, 2015, 09:58:06 AM

For the Christian to say that the world is going to blow up or get worse because unbelievers cannot point to an absolutely objective, moral foundation dismisses that emergent quality I just mentioned. That emergent quality is formed out billions of subjective and differing opinions.

The words that seem to be lurking behind the polite question in the OP are, "What is the ultimate foundation of your morality? What right do you have to your moral claims?" Because values have so much to do with how we define our morals, asking where I derive my ultimate moral authority or ultimate moral foundation is like asking what authority I have to be alive with different preferences and various tastes. As I understand it, my morals are an expression of what I value. This, I believe, where EVERYONE gets their morals.

Well said.

If you haven't read "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance", the author, Robert Pirsig, explores at length the concept of values (quality) as a fundamental idea in our thinking, equating it to a universal constant that can be both static and dynamic. Two books of philosophy I can recommend are that and "Lila", also by Pirsig, that explores the concept. Very thought provoking. Two very good reads that are also quite entertaining.

Quote from: stromboli on March 10, 2015, 11:48:04 AM
... a universal constant that can be both static and dynamic.

YES! That's it. That is what I was trying to put my finger on and didn't have words for it. When applied to morals, we have a dynamic population of subjective views and values. The static aspect of morals is the consensus humans have that certain things are just wrong. It looks more like a continuous wave rather than a fixed dot.

Morality is formed and honed by evolution.  Not individual evolution, but by a process similar to it.  As societies formed and grew, they developed values that helped them survive as a group.  As the group grew and changed, so did the values and 'morals' of that group.  When societies grew so large that they bumped into each other and had to blend, then those values changed.  The rules and regulations that helped the group grow or be strong we kept and the rules that did not help were discarded.  Morals developed so that members of a group could interact with one another without stepping on each others toes.  Morals did not come from an 'authority' but from group actions.  Our system of common law was designed to codify in words those morals or values that keep us from stepping on each others toes, and so that one individual could not impose his 'values' upon the rest of his society. 

People who what to know what authority you have for your morals just don't understand how human society grew or operates.

Some quotes I just have to share:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

Right. As I have pointed out here, the Civil War was fought almost entirely by white people of European descent who believed in the same god, spoke the same language and read the same holy book. And both sides found moral justification for their actions in their religion. So much for objectivity.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 10, 2015, 01:31:25 PM
Some quotes I just have to share:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective. Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 10, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective. Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

It would be in their world.  But simply labeling something 'moral' does not make it such.  With that same line of reasoning, the Nazi killing of Jews was moral.  In Sparta, stealing was moral.  Morality is not objective, but subjective.  That means it changes with the society--and even within a society.  Morals are not static, unchanging.  Those who do not like to reason, who do not like to think want an 'authority' to tell them what a moral is.  That way they do not have to think about it.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 10, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective.

He's not criticizing it as a subjective guide, but showing it's faulty as an objective one.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 10, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

Moral in whose eyes? The slaves'? Not in mine. It's not a majority rules kind of thing. Whatever's popular. That's not what I'm saying at all. But it's not a set of rules that fit every situation either. It's human. Growing and adapting as the circumstances of our lives change for whatever reason. But it is based in some pretty ancient principles like the golden rule.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 10, 2015, 01:31:25 PM
Some quotes I just have to share:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

The slavery issue in the Bible is more of a grey issue than a black and white issue.

At least one of the reasons for sanctioned slavery was to provide a way for a person to pay back debt. A modern equivalent would be how we are required to pay our debt to our creditors. In some ways, the only difference is that we don't go work in the fields of our bank creditors these days. Husbandry was the economy back then an the monetary system was not as developed as we have today. Be careful of isogetic errors.

However, there are Biblical examples of what sorts of inhumane behaviors were allowed toward slaves.

Also, it would probably be better to take the moral claims of the Christian on a case by case way. To dismiss any moral value in Christianity due to its moral imperfections is close genetic fallacy.

Even the Bible represents, in part, a portion of the emergent consensus of human morality.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 11, 2015, 07:21:29 AM
The slavery issue in the Bible is more of a grey issue than a black and white issue.

At least one of the reasons for sanctioned slavery was to provide a way for a person to pay back debt. A modern equivalent would be how we are required to pay our debt to our creditors. In some ways, the only difference is that we don't go work in the fields of our bank creditors these days. Husbandry was the economy back then an the monetary system was not as developed as we have today. Be careful of isogetic errors.

However, there are Biblical examples of what sorts of inhumane behaviors were allowed toward slaves.

Also, it would probably be better to take the moral claims of the Christian on a case by case way. To dismiss any moral value in Christianity due to its moral imperfections is close genetic fallacy.

The entire bible is a grey--it can be, and has been interpreted in more than one way.  And it is quite true that one can just about prove any moral point by cherry picking verses and cobbling them together.  And it is also a fact that the bible is not the 'Bible'--what I mean is, which translation are you going to call the Bible?  Which version from among the 100's at your local bookstore are you going to call The Bible???  All versions are replete with differences.  And all versions are suspect since the primary documents all differ.  And it is beyond me how an all-knowing, all-seeing, god could not have taken history into account with his 'word' so that these sorts of grey areas did not occur. 

So, you are telling me that in order to fully understand the Bible I need to run it through the filter of what words and phrases meant when it was written, when we don't really know when it was written?  And then through the filter of whatever translation I am reading?  That in itself makes it suspect to me.  Is this the document that is often touted as The Word of God??  That it is infallible, never changing and constant.   This is the document that is what all morals flow from????

I don't know what a "close genetic fallacy" is, but I do condemn Christens for lack of morals.  The same as I condemn all religions with a rigid hierarchy of the same thing.  Christians have in the past, do now, and will in the future believe all sorts of crazy things and give the bible as the source of that belief. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2015, 09:36:21 AM
The entire bible is a grey--it can be, and has been interpreted in more than one way.  And it is quite true that one can just about prove any moral point by cherry picking verses and cobbling them together.  And it is also a fact that the bible is not the 'Bible'--what I mean is, which translation are you going to call the Bible?  Which version from among the 100's at your local bookstore are you going to call The Bible???  All versions are replete with differences.  And all versions are suspect since the primary documents all differ.  And it is beyond me how an all-knowing, all-seeing, god could not have taken history into account with his 'word' so that these sorts of grey areas did not occur. 

So, you are telling me that in order to fully understand the Bible I need to run it through the filter of what words and phrases meant when it was written, when we don't really know when it was written?  And then through the filter of whatever translation I am reading?  That in itself makes it suspect to me.  Is this the document that is often touted as The Word of God??  That it is infallible, never changing and constant.   This is the document that is what all morals flow from????

I don't know what a "close genetic fallacy" is, but I do condemn Christens for lack of morals.  The same as I condemn all religions with a rigid hierarchy of the same thing.  Christians have in the past, do now, and will in the future believe all sorts of crazy things and give the bible as the source of that belief.

I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 11, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

I expect even less than you.  And of course you don't think my view is accurate.  You simply do not want to be honest to yourself and do the appropriate study of the issue.  It is much easier to be spoon fed an opinion than to take the time and effort to find out for yourself.  And you know little to nothing of my background, so you can label me what you will, matters not to me.  But it is simply an example of your willingness to display willful ignorance.   

By The way, i think we scared off our chewing toy.

I don't think he was going to go beyond insisting that we say that holocaust was "not objectively wrong," so that he could demean subjective morality with shock-value. He probably read C.S.Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man. or some similar, and thought he found gold. Personally I never bought into C.S. Lewis that much, even when I was a Christian.

It is good to have a chew toy every now and again.  My furry children seem to like them a lot.  I have always wondered about the christian suggestion that we study the bible in it's native language (as though that is an easy task to figure out all the time) to determine what various words mean.  I guess they mean to suggest that god could not figure out that there would be a historical line on people stretching on into the future and most would not read the original language.  Is god so dense that he could not figure out how to make sure all generations received the proper nuanced message?  Seems to me that god is kind of stupid in that he can't seem to deliverer  a clear message to much of anybody.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2015, 12:51:28 PM
I expect even less than you.  And of course you don't think my view is accurate.  You simply do not want to be honest to yourself and do the appropriate study of the issue.  It is much easier to be spoon fed an opinion than to take the time and effort to find out for yourself.  And you know little to nothing of my background, so you can label me what you will, matters not to me.  But it is simply an example of your willingness to display willful ignorance.

I thought we were having an interesting conversation. I don't know why you're getting snarky.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 11, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

I would like to keep the conversation going.  But look at the above quote and tell me who was being 'snarky'.  You called me an 'outsider' which I took to mean that I could not possibly know what I'm talking about since I know nothing about being christian.  I will be happy to compare my bible study against you or any of your typical christians.  I have been to many churches and was the board president of one for a year and vp for another year. Your other comment--"I don't expect anything out of you." I took to mean that I was probably too dense or biased to understand anyway.  That quote above did not seem to be any kind of conversation starter or displaying a wish to continue. 

Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2015, 11:26:05 PM
I would like to keep the conversation going.  But look at the above quote and tell me who was being 'snarky'.  You called me an 'outsider' which I took to mean that I could not possibly know what I'm talking about since I know nothing about being christian.  I will be happy to compare my bible study against you or any of your typical christians.  I have been to many churches and was the board president of one for a year and vp for another year. Your other comment--"I don't expect anything out of you." I took to mean that I was probably too dense or biased to understand anyway.  That quote above did not seem to be any kind of conversation starter or displaying a wish to continue. 

Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.

That is a lot to infer from what so wrote, but I assure you that I have not looked at you in the way you've described.

The reason I said I don't expect anything out of you is because of your comment saying, "Do you expect me..."

As far as the "outsider" statement goes, consider it a compliment. It is taken from the book "Why I Became an Atheist."

I don't have time now, but I will address the inaccuracies later.

Have a good day.

Don't underestimate the importance of this question to the foundations of religious liberty, including the freedom to do without a religion.

It is the belief that the Bible is infallible, which motivates the followers of the right wing of Christianity to try to impose their dogmas on the rest of the world.  Their greatest thinkers on the subject, teach that objective morality is from God, via the Bible. It is our responsibility to dissuade them of this notion, in the name of our own freedom.

I see three parts to this:

1. Show the Bible is imperfect.
2. Show the real nature and origin of morality.
3. Show a humanist morality is more workable than a Biblical one.

I think we have covered it well.

But there is one more thing that we haven't discussed: immorality, by which I mean when a person goes against his conscience and does the wrong thing, knowing it is wrong. I think, for the majority, this is what happened in Germany. Not that their morals were so out of whack, but that they were motivated to override their consciences (in many cases by fear, no doubt).

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2015, 11:26:05 PM
Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.

The reason I chimed in on your slavery comment in the first place is because it does not show a full reading of the Scripturesâ€"only showing the negative aspects of it. At least one of the reasons for slavery in the Bible was to provide a means of credit transactions in an undeveloped world. Slavery back in those days was not altogether like it in the USA's recent past.

Regarding my comment about you being close to committing a genetic fallacy, a genetic fallacy is when all data is rejected from a source that has been shown to be faulty and honest in the past. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Brushing aside any merit Christianity has in favor of your highly polarized position does not represent the reality of Christianity in the real world and what the Bible really has to say.

Let me put this another way. To say that  the Bible does not forbid slavery leaves one very susceptible to import the modern meaning of slavery in the the old form of it.

Speaking obviously here, slavery there in ancient Israel is not the same kind of slavery that was going on in the American South. Just saying.

I'm bored, Stealthy One, so I'm butting in on your discussion:

QuoteAt least one of the reasons for slavery in the Bible was to provide a means of credit transactions in an undeveloped world.

Your talking about indentured servitude. I agree the whole “Bible supports slavery” case is weak, from a logical perspective, but since when do Christians use logic?

QuoteTo say that  the Bible does not forbid slavery leaves one very susceptible to import the modern meaning of slavery in the the old form of it.

This is exactly what the slave owners were doing, in the American south, to  justify their economy. Subjectively interpreting the scripture. Bad scholarship? No kidding. But that's how they used the “objective bible” to support their unconscionable morality.

QuoteBrushing aside any merit Christianity has in favor of your highly polarized position does not represent the reality of Christianity in the real world and what the Bible really has to say.

There is no objective Christianity. So what the Bible really has to say is subjective. In the real world it is a  lot of different sects with different subjective opinions about the Bible as well as different Bibles. My favorite Bible is the Skeptic's Annotated N.I.V., which lists over 400 self contradictions in the N.I.V.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 12, 2015, 06:34:36 PM

Speaking obviously here, slavery there in ancient Israel is not the same kind of slavery that was going on in the American South. Just saying.

hey look we found one! Remember when ole jebus promised that not all of those of his generation would die before he returned? Well, I'll be got dammed this old charley is one of the originals. He must be because he claims to know how the slaves back in the day when you could kill your kid for being stubborn were treated….well, we must admit that the proof of one who was actually there must be acknowledged eh? So please tell us old man, how many times could you rape and beat your slave before you had to set her free?

Quote from: aitm on March 12, 2015, 07:43:52 PM
hey look we found one! Remember when ole jebus promised that not all of those of his generation would die before he returned? Well, I'll be got dammed this old charley is one of the originals. He must be because he claims to know how the slaves back in the day when you could kill your kid for being stubborn were treated….well, we must admit that the proof of one who was actually there must be acknowledged eh? So please tell us old man, how many times could you rape and beat your slave before you had to set her free?

I'm so glad I read that.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 12, 2015, 07:39:22 PM
I'm bored, Stealthy One, so I'm butting in on your discussion:
Your talking about indentured servitude. I agree the whole “Bible supports slavery” case is weak, from a logical perspective, but since when do Christians use logic?

This is exactly what the slave owners were doing, in the American south, to  justify their economy. Subjectively interpreting the scripture. Bad scholarship? No kidding. But that's how they used the “objective bible” to support their unconscionable morality.

There is no objective Christianity. So what the Bible really has to say is subjective. In the real world it is a  lot of different sects with different subjective opinions about the Bible as well as different Bibles. My favorite Bible is the Skeptic's Annotated N.I.V., which lists over 400 self contradictions in the N.I.V.

I was surprised to find the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not that great. I would never tacitly authorize all 400 contradictions in that Bible. When I read it last time, it seemed like it was inaccurate way too much. I found many apparent contradictions that where not contradictions at all. The author does not even know how to read the creation narrativeâ€"a simple task really. If the Bible appears wrong in the slightest, it calls out, "Contradiction!" With no apparent forethought.

Some of his contradictions are weak, but you can't just dismiss all of them. I'm willing to modify the number of actual contradictions.

And please explain to us this special way of reading the creation narrative.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 13, 2015, 06:45:01 AM
I was surprised to find the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not that great. I would never tacitly authorize all 400 contradictions in that Bible. When I read it last time, it seemed like it was inaccurate way too much. I found many apparent contradictions that where not contradictions at all. The author does not even know how to read the creation narrativeâ€"a simple task really. If the Bible appears wrong in the slightest, it calls out, "Contradiction!" With no apparent forethought.

Ah!  You have really piqued my interest with your comment about the creation narrative.  I see them as two totally different stories.  How do you reconcile them?  Don't be afraid to give me homework.  You can list a bible edition and a list of verses to read if you like and I'll do it.  I'm willing to look more deeply into any subject and see if there is any reason for me to change my mind.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 13, 2015, 08:51:55 AM
Ah!  You have really piqued my interest with your comment about the creation narrative.  I see them as two totally different stories.  How do you reconcile them?  Don't be afraid to give me homework.  You can list a bible edition and a list of verses to read if you like and I'll do it.  I'm willing to look more deeply into any subject and see if there is any reason for me to change my mind.

I'm not an advocate for bible study anymore.

Fear of legal ramifications is the only thing that keeps me from my lifelong dream of being a serial killer. It's that dratted original sin, dontchaknow.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 13, 2015, 08:59:40 AM
I'm not an advocate for bible study anymore.

Really???!  Then the document that you derive your morals from you don't study????  Pardon me, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 13, 2015, 11:06:39 AM
Really???!  Then the document that you derive your morals from you don't study????  Pardon me, but that doesn't make sense to me.

That's because you don't read very carefully. You must think I'm a Christian because only Christians get their morals from the Bible. I'm not a Christian at all. Christianity doesn't make any sense to me and I have a lot of gripes about it.

I guess I have a right to be annoyed with you, but whatever. Just read me more carefully.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 06:51:10 AM
I see a problem here.  Remember that Group B consists of people who have interacted together and belief that the holocaust is morally right.  For this group of people, they sincerely believe that there is NO harm being done to the Jewish people.  Since the Jewish people, are not really 'people' in their eyes.  However, Group A has interacted together and believes that there IS harm being done to the Jewish people.  We have two groups here.  One says there is harm being done (A), and one says there is no harm being done (B).  Which group then should we take sides on?

Wrong. Harm is a very real & quantifiable metric.  That you choose to ignore it and simply equivocate "harm" with your obtuse "morals" is your loss.

Also, in psychotherapy (at least some of the theories within psychotherapy), Pain is a very real metric, same as Harm. Again, that you fail to acknowledge it is not my problem.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 13, 2015, 01:55:06 PM
Wrong. Harm is a very real & quantifiable metric.  That you choose to ignore it and simply equivocate "harm" with your obtuse "morals" is your loss.

Also, in psychotherapy (at least some of the theories within psychotherapy), Pain is a very real metric, same as Harm. Again, that you fail to acknowledge it is not my problem.

Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 07:34:09 AM
A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

You must not push anyone in front of the train (Thou shalt not kill).  The only clear option is to do nothing.  Jesus will stop the train and save the 5 people.  Or if he doesn't, it's because we do not understand God's plan.  We are mortals and cannot understand God's perfection, because he is almighty.

Quote from: SGOS on March 16, 2015, 08:26:27 AM
You must not push anyone in front of the train (Thou shalt not kill).  The only clear option is to do nothing.  Jesus will stop the train and save the 5 people.  Or if he doesn't, it's because we do not understand God's plan.  We are mortals and cannot understand God's perfection, because he is almighty.

Damn, Sgos, you have just displayed priestly abilities and judgement.  You will now be addressed as Holy Sgos.  I bow to your saintlyness. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 16, 2015, 08:50:28 AM
Damn, Sgos, you have just displayed priestly abilities and judgement. 

I'm just practicing because I plan to start a new church.  I figure that's where the easy money is, and I'm sick of paying taxes.

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 07:34:09 AM
Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

I would choose 3, making up ridiculous hypotheticals to further display my ignorance & lack of understanding Harm and Pain to move goal-posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voJmOYyI-T0

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 05:35:29 AM
Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

I am far too lazy to browse the 10 pages of responses at 8:00 in the morning (since I have been up over 21 hours now), but for me I "get" my morality from a desire to not harm others. I don't need someone or something to tell me that's what I find moral, that simply is how I feel. That said, I do find that "religions" like Buddhism do help make better arguments than just "this is how I feel", and I am a fan of some of the philosophy that came from German writers like Hesse and Nietzsche.

QuoteA train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

I would rather jump down infront of the train myself and motion as furiously as I could for it to slow down and jump out of the way at the last second. The size of the man is irrelevant; a train driver is going to slow down be it a 300 lb man or a 10 year old little girl. The "large man" part of it, to me anyways, feels like a cheap way of implying that his life is less important. I think it says far more about the person who would create such a question than the answerer.

I would not push the big man in front of the train because he is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer.  And the 5 guys in the car on the tracks were trying to make a getaway from bombing an elementary school.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 16, 2015, 09:14:31 AM
I would choose 3, making up ridiculous hypotheticals to further display my ignorance & lack of understanding Harm and Pain to move goal-posts.

There is no "3". The idea of the question is to show you the fact that morality clearly has shades of grey that cannot be quantified.

The problem with your statement qchan is that there is always a 3rd 4rth 5th and so on options IRL. It's out side of the box thinking that can save all the lives not limited thinking which most likely will not stop the train and kill an additional innocent man.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 16, 2015, 09:19:42 AM
I am far too lazy to browse the 10 pages of responses at 8:00 in the morning (since I have been up over 21 hours now), but for me I "get" my morality from a desire to not harm others. I don't need someone or something to tell me that's what I find moral, that simply is how I feel. That said, I do find that "religions" like Buddhism do help make better arguments than just "this is how I feel", and I am a fan of some of the philosophy that came from German writers like Hesse and Nietzsche.

I would rather jump down infront of the train myself and motion as furiously as I could for it to slow down and jump out of the way at the last second. The size of the man is irrelevant; a train driver is going to slow down be it a 300 lb man or a 10 year old little girl. The "large man" part of it, to me anyways, feels like a cheap way of implying that his life is less important. I think it says far more about the person who would create such a question than the answerer.

Actually, this was a previous study created by psychologists in order to understand the morality of a psychopath.  Most psychopaths would simply push the man in front of the train if that meant saving the 5 people up the rail. Most people who are not psychopathic, however, would not push the man. In fact, they would do nothing and would let the 5 people die. Now, the real question is "why?"

Scientists say that psychopaths lack that emotional connection in their brains. Therefore, their actions do not invoke an emotional response. However, most people _do_ have that emotional connection, but even if they had the choice to save the 5 people, they refuse to directly involve themselves in the death of _any_ person. Of course, that realization invokes another "why?"

What is it inside a human being that prevents them from saving 5 people at the expense of 1 person? Why would pushing a person to their death invoke such an emotional response that they'd risk the death of even more people? This is what science cannot explain... However, many people here can.

So, here's my question, I suppose. Could you explain this?

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 07:34:09 AM
Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

How does this measure morality?

It doesn't measure a thing. It's the fucking kobayashi maru from Star Trek II. A no-win scenario. Is that the best we can do for a moral dilemma?

I don't think we need outlandish hypothetical situations, to show that "harm'" is difficult to quantify sometimes.

"Do taxes harm the rich?" is a dilemma that comes up a lot.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 16, 2015, 05:02:16 PM
It doesn't measure a thing. It's the fucking kobayashi maru from Star Trek II. A no-win scenario. Is that the best we can do for a moral dilemma?

I don't think we need outlandish hypothetical situations, to show that "harm'" is difficult to quantify sometimes.

"Do taxes harm the rich?" is a dilemma that comes up a lot.

I find it interesting that you refuse to dispute my claims, but rather, refute the phrase altogether.

Lets look at it this way. If morality is quantifiable, then that would mean morality is objective; meaning that the basic level of morality is agreed upon with everyone. Is this correct?

Man, if you guys didn't outnumber Qchan then it would be obvious to anyone with a brain that the ones 'moving the goalposts' and honestly getting an embarrassing beatdown are you guys. Really? We can quantify harm? What's the unit, microhiroshimas?

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 05:14:46 PM
I find it interesting that you refuse to dispute my claims, but rather, refute the phrase altogether.

Lets look at it this way. If morality is quantifiable, then that would mean morality is objective; meaning that the basic level of morality is agreed upon with everyone. Is this correct?

I think you misunderstand me. Harm is not easily quantifiable, but we don't need ridiculous hypothetical situations to prove it. I suggest using a more mundane illustration.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 16, 2015, 06:18:22 PM
I think you misunderstand me. Harm is not easily quantifiable, but we don't need ridiculous hypothetical situations to prove it. I suggest using a more mundane illustration.

Oh, so you just disagree with my example. Why make such a big fuss if you agree with my premise?

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 07:34:09 AM
Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

There is actually another choice. Jump in front of the train yourself and save everyone.

By all means, quantify morality for us.

Offering hypothetical examples does not quantify anything. I  can hypothetically guess that moose fall off of cliffs because they are learning to fly. We've been discussing morality on here for quite some time, and I have yet to see any specific example that in fact portrays or "quantifies" it.

And quantify is the wrong word. the root is from quantity or number, meaning To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

All or some objective morality?

I think a better word is demonstrable. Can you demonstrate or show an example of an objective morality that covers all cultures, conditions or situations where a moral ruling is applicable? I stated the same thing some pages back. If there is one, I am not aware of it.

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 06:20:44 PM
Oh, so you just disagree with my example. Why make such a big fuss if you agree with my premise?

If you read through the thread, we had a Christian on here beating us over the head with a Holocaust hypothetical, and no one wants to hear another one.

As far as your premise, I'm not sure you stated one.

Also, Qchan, you should start an introduction thread in "the Lobby," so we can welcome you.

X

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 16, 2015, 07:37:52 PM
If you read through the thread, we had a Christian on here beating us over the head with a Holocaust hypothetical, and no one wants to hear another one.

As far as your premise, I'm not sure you stated one.

Also, Qchan, you should start an introduction thread in "the Lobby," so we can welcome you.

My premise is that morality is not quantifiable. You agree with that, so that means we agree with each other.

Quote from: stromboli on March 16, 2015, 07:06:31 PM
By all means, quantify morality for us.

Offering hypothetical examples does not quantify anything. I  can hypothetically guess that moose fall off of cliffs because they are learning to fly. We've been discussing morality on here for quite some time, and I have yet to see any specific example that in fact portrays or "quantifies" it.

And quantify is the wrong word. the root is from quantity or number, meaning To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

All or some objective morality?

That's my point. Morality is _not_ quantifiable. I'm sorry you pissed the point I was trying to make.

I'm interested, though... What do you define are universal morality? My morality would be completely different than the morality of someone in another country. I'm curious as to what you consider to be moral and not moral.

Quote from: Qchan on March 16, 2015, 11:05:55 PM
That's my point. Morality is _not_ quantifiable. I'm sorry you pissed the point I was trying to make.

I'm interested, though... What do you define are universal morality? My morality would be completely different than the morality of someone in another country. I'm curious as to what you consider to be moral and not moral.

Strom (and most everybody else here) has been saying just that all along.  It would pay you to invest the time and read some of the most recent posts by strom. 

There isn't any universal moral value.  For me being moral is causing as little harm as possible; and tying to be aware of even the unintentional harm I may cause; kind of like an interweaving of the Wicca motto and the several hundred golden rules.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 16, 2015, 11:37:49 PMIt would pay you to invest the time and read some of the most recent posts by strom.

It would have paid you and several others to read Qchan's posts in the first place instead of assuming he was on the wrong side of the debate just because he's not an atheist and Sal is. So far as I can tell, Sal is the only one in this thread who has explicitly stated support for the view that harm is quantifiable, and everyone else, presumably baffled by the sheer stupidity of that claim, failed to realize that he was, in fact, in the wrong, and Qchan in the right.

I'm in the minority here believing there are moral values independent of culture, that things like rape are always wrong.

The reason I think Harm and Pain are quantifiable is because we can measure what sort of impact causing and lessening Harm and Pain. This of course isn't exactly an obvious metric, but a "fuzzy" relative one. For example, in every day life I, and dare I say most, follow some "moral compass" that has a basis in experience with dealing with other people and your surroundings. That we can't agree on one way of how to go about our business is just the nature of how own subjective worldviews.

I don't think morality can be pinned down to an "objective morality" because of the very nature of morality: interacting with other people, which means it will always be subjective in the outset. Yet, I think we can all agree on some subsets of morality, such as Harm and Pain. Sam Harris' moral landscape comes to mind, with its valleys and mountaintops of moral behavior.

One way to quantify this would be to minimize what one considers Pain in beings able to experience Pain against maximum Pain possible. Same with Harm.

To me that spells a world where I try to do the least amount of Pain and Harm as desirable against their polar opposites. Probably not realistically possible for everyone because we all have different subjective measurements of what we consider Pain and Harm.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 17, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
The reason I think Harm and Pain are quantifiable is because we can measure what sort of impact causing and lessening Harm and Pain. This of course isn't exactly an obvious metric, but a "fuzzy" relative one. For example, in every day life I, and dare I say most, follow some "moral compass" that has a basis in experience with dealing with other people and your surroundings. That we can't agree on one way of how to go about our business is just the nature of how own subjective worldviews.

I don't think morality can be pinned down to an "objective morality" because of the very nature of morality: interacting with other people, which means it will always be subjective in the outset. Yet, I think we can all agree on some subsets of morality, such as Harm and Pain. Sam Harris' moral landscape comes to mind, with its valleys and mountaintops of moral behavior.

One way to quantify this would be to minimize what one considers Pain in beings able to experience Pain against maximum Pain possible. Same with Harm.

To me that spells a world where I try to do the least amount of Pain and Harm as desirable against their polar opposites. Probably not realistically possible for everyone because we all have different subjective measurements of what we consider Pain and Harm.

And what constitutes as pain and harm? Pain and harm is subjective, wouldn't you say? Each person deals with those two things differently. To base your level of morality on arbitrary opinions is a bit asinine. How would you know how another prefers to be treated? I've learned that, just because you want to be treated a certain way doesn't mean another person wants to be treated that same way. So, how would you dictate what hurts some one the least?

You make morality seem so black and white. Its not black and white - and speaking of black and white: African Americans suffer discrimination every day. Yet, when whites are asked if African Americans are being discriminated against in this day and age, an overwhelming majority say they aren't. If morality was so "black and white", then wouldn't whites be able to see that African Americans are still subject to harsh discrimination? Clearly, there's pain and harm here, yet it continues.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 17, 2015, 04:11:59 AM
I'm in the minority here believing there are moral values independent of culture, that things like rape are always wrong.

It depends on what you mean exactly whether or not i agree. I too feel like, for example, pedophilia is  wrong. Independent of what a culture says. It was something abhorrent, i feel, even in ancient greek civilisations. And it is wrong that in Some cultures even today old men can mary eight year olds.
That in no way however implies there is a moral standard outside of mankinds subjective understandin, reasoning and interpretention. Even less one imposed on us by an omnipotent and omniscient beïng. Nor does it lead me to believe that what i hold to be wrong or right under any and all circumstances will be universally agreed upon.
For example, i find nothing at all immoral about eating meat. Yet Some people i know do find it completely immoral. I understand and comprehend their reasoning but fail to be persuaded. I even give it good odds that in first world countries in a few hundred years The eating of meat Will be widely be concidered immoral. But even if they have such a vision with solid reasoning to back it up, it will still be morality that is subjective and only existed within mankinds intelligenc; shared and individual.

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 07:37:16 AM
And what constitutes as pain and harm? Pain and harm is subjective, wouldn't you say? Each person deals with those two things differently. To base your level of morality on arbitrary opinions is a bit asinine. How would you know how another prefers to be treated? I've learned that, just because you want to be treated a certain way doesn't mean another person wants to be treated that same way. So, how would you dictate what hurts some one the least?

Pain is a neurological reaction that we can measure in both animals and humans. I don't think plants have the same capacity, so I find it less morally intrusive to uproot a grass, than, say, slap a man, because the latter is able to experience Pain. Someone else with other moral standards might then disagree and say that the former has with it greater Harm. It really depends what your values are. I wouldn't dictate what causes the least amount of Pain, other than what we can measure and agree upon. If there's disagreement, so be it, and there'll be conflict.

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 07:37:16 AMYou make morality seem so black and white. Its not black and white - and speaking of black and white: African Americans suffer discrimination every day. Yet, when whites are asked if African Americans are being discriminated against in this day and age, an overwhelming majority say they aren't. If morality was so "black and white", then wouldn't whites be able to see that African Americans are still subject to harsh discrimination? Clearly, there's pain and harm here, yet it continues.

You're throwing a lot of unsubstantiated claims around, who are these "overwhelming majority" substantiated by? You? Should I take your word for granted? Even if I concede there is (not that I disagree with you, I just want to see some data on the matter) just goes to show the different values Pain and Harm has to different people. I never claimed an objective moral standard, just that it just might be quantifiable and, daresay, measurable.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 17, 2015, 07:57:47 AM
That in no way however implies there is a moral standard outside of mankinds subjective understandin, reasoning and interpretention. Even less one imposed on us by an omnipotent and omniscient beïng. Nor does it lead me to believe that what i hold to be wrong or right under any and all circumstances will be universally agreed upon.

Since I’m an atheist, I obviously don’t believe that morals are dictated by a omnipotent being. I believe certain moral values and behaviors have evolved as part of being human. These values are affected by culture but exist independently of culture. One example is that humans are territorial and believe in personal possession of property. Babies do not need to learn the concept “this is mine.” Give a baby a toy and then see the reaction when you take it away, even if he was not actively playing with it. Go to any culture where people are seated in a stadium and when someone gets up go to go the bathroom go sit in “their” seat and see the reaction. Because we have evolved to be territorial and possess property we make moral judgments and create laws regarding people who take things that belong to us. Every culture has to deal with thievery because everyone believes when someone takes your stuff it is wrong. This isn’t because God says stealing is wrong or because our culture teaches us we should be upset when someone takes our stuff. We have an emotional reaction when people steal from us. Humans could have evolved to not be territorial or to care about possession of property but, regardless of culture, we care.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 17, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
Pain is a neurological reaction that we can measure in both animals and humans. I don't think plants have the same capacity, so I find it less morally intrusive to uproot a grass, than, say, slap a man, because the latter is able to experience Pain. Someone else with other moral standards might then disagree and say that the former has with it greater Harm. It really depends what your values are. I wouldn't dictate what causes the least amount of Pain, other than what we can measure and agree upon. If there's disagreement, so be it, and there'll be conflict.

You're missing my point. You're agreeing with me, but you don't realize it.
I'm saying morality can't be quantified. For it to be quantifiable would mean that there is a level of morality everyone agrees on.

If you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

Quote
You're throwing a lot of unsubstantiated claims around, who are these "overwhelming majority" substantiated by? You? Should I take your word for granted? Even if I concede there is (not that I disagree with you, I just want to see some data on the matter) just goes to show the different values Pain and Harm has to different people. I never claimed an objective moral standard, just that it just might be quantifiable and, daresay, measurable.

You're asking for a link to back up this data? What I'm speaking about is called "White Denial".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-j-leonard/white-denial-and-a-cultur_b_1817557.html

Tim Wise wrote a very detailed piece on the subject:
http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/137/studyguide_137.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Here's a little thing for you guys saying Qchan's hypothetical was stupid or trying to find easy ways out without addressing the complexities.

Just remember, you aren't calling Qchan stupid, you're calling Philippa Foot stupid. And she could kick any of your asses up and down the trolley in an ethics debate any day of the week, if she hadn't died 5 years ago.

Quote from: missingnocchi on March 17, 2015, 02:16:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Here's a little thing for you guys saying Qchan's hypothetical was stupid or trying to find easy ways out without addressing the complexities.

Just remember, you aren't calling Qchan stupid, you're calling Philippa Foot stupid. And she could kick any of your asses up and down the trolley in an ethics debate any day of the week, if she hadn't died 5 years ago.

The reality is, I didn't create the scenario. I dunno how many times I need to stress this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 02:40:44 PM
The reality is, I didn't create the scenario. I dunno how many times I need to stress this.

I know dude, that's what I was saying. Philippa Foot created the original problem.

Quote from: missingnocchi on March 17, 2015, 02:42:15 PM
I know dude, that's what I was saying. Philippa Foot created the original problem.

Oh, I must've misread you. My apologies.
Seems as though most people are unaware of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 12:40:54 PM

If you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I don't think there are really any 'morals'.  What is usually called morals is what you call 'values'--and that for me is a good label.  I hate it when the politicos use the term Christian Morals--I immediately know that that person is blowing smoke and does not know what he/she is talking about.  So, is it moral for you to retaliate? Only you can answer that.  For me, it would not.  But I've learned that from experience.  Revenge does not make me feel better, even at the moment of getting it.  But self defense is different--attack me or mine and I'll fucking kill ya.  I could say I have my own moral code--but even that has huge amounts of grey.  Basically, I know what I'd do in certain situations--those situations I've been in.  Put me into an untried situation and who knows what I'll end up doing.  But me in a Korean POW camp, and I'd do just about whatever it is that was demanded of me.

Webster's:

QuoteMorality

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good - the moral goodness or badness of something

The second definition seems to suggest objectivity, but the first is subjective. What you are calling values. Morality is still an acceptable word for it.

Despite all the nuances  to it, there are some morals, or values, that are pretty common to us all. Overcoming your own nature, and adhering to the golden rule, for example, despite some selfish thing your passions are stimulating you to do, most of us would consider more noble than following your gut. If you were in that POW camp and were required to kill a fellow prisoner to stay alive, you very possibly might give your life for his.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 17, 2015, 05:20:14 PM

Despite all the nuances  to it, there are some morals, or values, that are pretty common to us all. Overcoming your own nature, and adhering to the golden rule, for example, despite some selfish thing your passions are stimulating you to do, most of us would consider more noble than following your gut. If you were in that POW camp and were required to kill a fellow prisoner to stay alive, you very possibly might give your life for his.

Yes, Solomon, I might.  And I'd like to think I would.  But I have not been there and could very easily rationalize it so that I need to kill the guy to live myself.  As a kid I remember seeing newsreels about the Korean War POW's.  Some were looked down on because they 'cracked' and signed a paper or said that the US was bad.  I wondered then if I would not simply say anything, sign anything to keep from being tortured or to stop the torture.  Would I kill another prisoner?  I don't know. 

Torture is another extreme situation though.

I still object to the trolley scenario (even if God Herself wrote it) as just an example of a ridiculously extreme no-win situation, that none of us will ever find ourselves in. Morality for the vast majority of us is so much more mundane. To me, it's how long do I let the dog walk me, before it's time to go in. It's do I leave the last slice for my sister, or do I eat it myself. It's do I go out of my way to help when I could just as easily not get involved. It's what you do when there is nothing obviously beneficial to yourself.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 17, 2015, 05:41:33 PM
Torture is another extreme situation though.

I still object to the trolley scenario (even if God Herself wrote it) as just an example of a ridiculously extreme no-win situation, that none of us will ever find ourselves in. Morality for the vast majority of us is so much more mundane. To me, it's how long do I let the dog walk me, before it's time to go in. It's do I leave the last slice for my sister, or do I eat it myself. It's do I go out of my way to help when I could just as easily not get involved. It's what you do when there is nothing obviously beneficial to yourself.

Oh, I agree.  How you act when nobody is looking is what you are.  My morals are my daily actions.  But they are situational.  Doing harm is the key element--try not to do it.  Which is why I say there are no morals because morals to me suggest a giver of such, almost always a god of some sort.  Values are a better way of thinking about it.  But for you and I, it is really semantics, for I think we pretty much agree on all of this.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 17, 2015, 05:48:44 PM
...But for you and I, it is really semantics, for I think we pretty much agree on all of this.

Now that's no fun! :wink:

In the interest of making an increasingly stale thread fun again, indulge me in a couple of poems I wrote on the subject:

"Golden Rule"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/golden-rule.html

"All Loving"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/all-loving.html

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 17, 2015, 06:26:19 PM
In the interest of making an increasingly stale thread fun again, indulge me in a couple of poems I wrote on the subject:

"Golden Rule"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/golden-rule.html

"All Loving"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/all-loving.html

Solomon. You haven't addressed the point I made in the other thread. Allow me to quote myself:

Quote
do you watch anime at all? Ever hear of Gundam? Hear me out. I'm making a point here. Gundam is an anime based on political warfare, espionage and conflict. There are always two sides in Gundam. The Earth Federation and The Principality of Zeon. Earth being the allied nations of earth and Zeon being the allied space colonies. In Gundam, it usually always follows behind a character allied with the Earth Federation. Gundam grasps the ideology of morality very well. It shows how both sides want peace. It follows closely behind the friends and families of both sides so you can relate to both. Neither side is defined as "evil". Suddenly, someone from the Earth Federation would act independently and spark a war between both sides. Eventually, the one responsible would get killed, but the war would still continue. The people fighting the war are still classified as good people, but in the spark of the war, they've lost family and friends - and all they know is anger and revenge. Misunderstandings on the positions of both side circulate and peace between the two sides becomes more and more distant. Some soldiers only fight because they are ordered to fight or because they hold loyalty to a person or group. Other soldiers fight just to feed their families due to the instability of the war. So, my question is... Where is the morality?

My point is that morality isn't scientific. Morality conflicts with the laws of self preservation. Morality makes people unpredictable.

Christians always say that the foundation of morality is God himself. However, what do atheists say is the foundation of morality? Nothing! Because morality doesn't make scientific sense. Use my Gundam example above. Harm and pain is being distributed everywhere, because it's war. However, where is the morality or lack thereof in war? War is entirely fueled by emotions, and morality is specifically linked to emotions. What is right and what is wrong is triggered by how you feel and not by how you think. Your feelings cannot be measured or quantified. The concept of morality is a logic loop-hole and so many atheists fall for it.

Would you address this bit, please?

QuoteMy point is that morality isn't scientific. Morality conflicts with the laws of self preservation. Morality makes people unpredictable. Christians always say that the foundation of morality is God himself. However, what do atheists say is the foundation of morality? Nothing! Because morality doesn't make scientific sense.

Well, while I would agree that objective morality isn't scientific, a subjective one is natural, and therefore not unscientific, and has a foundation in social evolution.

QuoteUse my Gundam example above. Harm and pain is being distributed everywhere, because it's war. However, where is the morality or lack thereof in war?

In a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldier, and a million other examples.

QuoteWar is entirely fueled by emotions, and morality is specifically linked to emotions.

Too simplistic.

QuoteWhat is right and what is wrong is triggered by how you feel and not by how you think.

I tentatively disagree with this. Ask someone whose lost 80 pounds about will power. Overcoming hunger to improve his health could be considered a moral choice.

QuoteThe concept of morality is a logic loop-hole and so many atheists fall for it.

Morality has at least two definitions. You should add the qualifier, "objective" or "subjective," rather than confusing the issue by making "values" the only term you use for subjective morals.

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 02:49:07 PM
Oh, I must've misread you. My apologies.
Seems as though most people are unaware of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

I guess I take the utilitarian approach. In order to reduce the number of casualties, one person has to be sacrificed in either scenario. I would pull the lever sacrificing only one person instead of five. In the other scenario, would push a person off the bridge if it meant saving five others, or if I couldn't overcome my revulsion to murder, I would jump from the bridge sacrificing myself.

Morality seems to stem from trying to reduce harm to the group while taking into account the individual's self-interest and safety. Some people tend to take a more utilitarian approach, others may sacrifice their self-interest for the benefit of the group (altruism), while some might put their self-interest before the group (in extremes, it can be a form of sociopathy), and then most are varying degrees between group interest and self-interest making their choices relative to the situation and severity of need.

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 12:40:54 PM
You're missing my point. You're agreeing with me, but you don't realize it.
I'm saying morality can't be quantified. For it to be quantifiable would mean that there is a level of morality everyone agrees on.

I think saying that everyone would agree on a moral system is utopia, at best we can have Laws to that we agree on. Such as "stealing is wrong", "murder is wrong". I'm not exactly Kantian on the Law, because I can easily envision scenarios where stealing a loaf of bread to stop yourself from dying of starvation would be morally "better" than not stealing and let yourself starve to death. The gist is that morality, at least as how I would qualify it, and pictured by Sam Harris as a moral landscape, is that morality is merely guiding in our behavior, not an absolute. To me, quantifying this, seems more of a technical difficulty than qualitative one.

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 12:40:54 PMIf you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

I think revenge is always wrong. But in the case of someone causing you bodily Harm, I see nothing wrong with self-defense to limit it, and I don't qualify that as revenge.

As for the last sentence, I think that it is impossible to have "an invisible list of rules" no matter what qualitative subject it is, be it physics or chemistry, just that morality is circumstantial rather than descriptive (if I'm using those words right, I mean that physical laws "governs" us despite our realization of them, whereas morality is the other way around, we need to realize them before we can decide how we govern ourselves).

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 17, 2015, 07:45:27 PM
Well, while I would agree that objective morality isn't scientific, a subjective one is natural, and therefore not unscientific, and has a foundation in social evolution.
In a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldier, and a million other examples.
Too simplistic.
I tentatively disagree with this. Ask someone whose lost 80 pounds about will power. Overcoming hunger to improve his health could be considered a moral choice.
Morality has at least two definitions. You should add the qualifier, "objective" or "subjective," rather than confusing the issue by making "values" the only term you use for subjective morals.

You mention that subjective morality is scientific, but then you disagree that morality is based on feelings rather than thought. Subjective morality is fancy for "opinion". Are you saying opinions aren't based on how a person feels? Seems like a contradiction to me. If you feel a certain way, your opinion will certainly be persuaded by such feelings.

That is the issue I'm trying to address. Subjective morality is like saying "Round triangle". It doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Sal1981 on March 18, 2015, 05:59:07 AM
I think saying that everyone would agree on a moral system is utopia, at best we can have Laws to that we agree on. Such as "stealing is wrong", "murder is wrong". I'm not exactly Kantian on the Law, because I can easily envision scenarios where stealing a loaf of bread to stop yourself from dying of starvation would be morally "better" than not stealing and let yourself starve to death. The gist is that morality, at least as how I would qualify it, and pictured by Sam Harris as a moral landscape, is that morality is merely guiding in our behavior, not an absolute. To me, quantifying this, seems more of a technical difficulty than qualitative one.
I think revenge is always wrong. But in the case of someone causing you bodily Harm, I see nothing wrong with self-defense to limit it, and I don't qualify that as revenge.

As for the last sentence, I think that it is impossible to have "an invisible list of rules" no matter what qualitative subject it is, be it physics or chemistry, just that morality is circumstantial rather than descriptive (if I'm using those words right, I mean that physical laws "governs" us despite our realization of them, whereas morality is the other way around, we need to realize them before we can decide how we govern ourselves).

These are your opinions, though. Your opinions are based on how you feel. I'm speaking directly upon the concept of morality itself.

Here's a question for you. What do you feel is the foundation for morality?

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 08:33:22 AM
You mention that subjective morality is scientific, but then you disagree that morality is based on feelings rather than thought. Subjective morality is fancy for "opinion". Are you saying opinions aren't based on how a person feels? Seems like a contradiction to me. If you feel a certain way, your opinion will certainly be persuaded by such feelings.

That is the issue I'm trying to address. Subjective morality is like saying "Round triangle". It doesn't make sense.

Websters:

Quote: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good - the moral goodness or badness of something

There are TWO definitions of morality in the Websters Dictionary. You have chosen to ignore the first one (the one that doesn't fit your preconceived notion). This makes it difficult to discuss the subject with you. Sometimes morals, and other opinions, are based on feelings, sometimes on reasoning, sometimes on the authority of a book, but they are no less subjective in any case.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2015, 12:58:55 PM
Websters:There are TWO definitions of morality in the Websters Dictionary. You have chosen to ignore the first one (the one that doesn't fit your preconceived notion). This makes it difficult to discuss the subject with you. Sometimes morals, and other opinions, are based on feelings, sometimes on reasoning, sometimes on the authority of a book, but they are no less subjective in any case.

Both definitions say the exact same thing.

Subjective morality = Opinions

If I slap you and I felt it was moral, then who is right? When you look at everything subjectively, every action and idea a human makes becomes a simple point of view. That is the point I'm trying to make. You cannot claim anything is moral or not moral because it turns into an opinion. This is why the whole idea of "morality" among atheists is a catch 22. It doesn't make sense to talk about what is right or wrong if what is right and what is wrong is based on someone's opinion of justice.

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 01:17:45 PM
Both definitions say the exact same thing.

Subjective morality = Opinions

The first definition is subjective, as in "BELIEFS". The second definition is objective, the quality of "GOODNESS OR BADNESS."

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 01:17:45 PM
If I slap you and I felt it was moral, then who is right?

Right? You mean objectively? No one is "right."

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 01:17:45 PMWhen you look at everything subjectively, every action and idea a human makes becomes a simple point of view. That is the point I'm trying to make. You cannot claim anything is moral or not moral because it turns into an opinion. This is why the whole idea of "morality" among atheists is a catch 22. It doesn't make sense to talk about what is right or wrong if what is right and what is wrong is based on someone's opinion of justice.

Nobody's talking about what is right or wrong. Nobody's claiming anything is moral or not moral. Talking about our specific morals is not what we're doing here. We're talking about the nature of morality. Most of us are not claiming anything is objectively moral.

You're not gaining any ground here Qchan. Atheists have morals the same as everyone else. We just don't believe God gave them to us. We have in fact, a great deal of agreement, not only with each other, but with religious folks as well, as to what is right and wrong.

It's not a perfect world.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2015, 01:37:57 PM
The first definition is subjective. The second definition is objective.
Right? You mean objectively? No one is "right."
Nobody's talking about what is right or wrong. Nobody's claiming anything is moral or not moral. Talking about our specific morals is not what we're doing here. We're talking about the nature of morality. Most of us are not claiming anything is objectively moral.

You're not gaining any ground here Qchan. Atheists have morals the same as everyone else. We just don't believe God gave them to us. We have in fact, a great deal of agreement, not only with each other, but with religious folks as well, as to what is right and wrong.

It's not a perfect world.

1) That's not how I've interpreted it.

2) Precisely!

3) When you say, "atheists have morals the same as everyone else" you expect people to understand that you know "right" from "wrong" like everybody else as if the concept is objective. It is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 01:52:01 PM
3) When you say, "atheists have morals the same as everyone else" you expect people to understand that you know "right" from "wrong" like everybody else as if the concept is objective. It is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

NO! I don't know "right from wrong" in any OBJECTIVE sense. I have a SUBJECTIVE morality, the same as everyone else has a SUBJECTIVE morality. To say I don't have morals would be to say that I don't have any BELIEFS as to what is right or wrong. Is that what you want me to say? How many ways do I need to explain this to you? Everyone has a subjective morality. No one has an objective one. You are mistaken in your definition of morality (that it implies objectivity) and I think that is still coloring your misunderstanding of other people on this thread, especially me. You have created a semantic problem where none exists.

QuoteIt is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

The only logical fallacy here is your obfuscation of definitions to make the words “right” and “wrong”  inherently objective, when there is another way of using those terms as well. Acceptable, or unacceptable are legitimate synonyms, and might help you understand the meaning of what I said, since the context of everything else that I've written on the subject doesn't seem to be sufficient for you to figure it out.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2015, 05:20:42 PM
The only logical fallacy here is your obfuscation of definitions to make the words “right” and “wrong”  inherently objective, when there is another way of using those terms as well. Acceptable, or unacceptable are legitimate synonyms, and might help you understand the meaning of what I said, since the context of everything else that I've written on the subject doesn't seem to be sufficient for you to figure it out.

You and I don't disagree. However, I am trying to help your argument. I'm telling you that morality doesn't make sense scientifically.

Were you aware that the world's sense of morality was much much different before the turn of the millennium? Mankind was pretty primitive and barbaric when it came to morality. Our morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically since those times. You claim that morality is subjective because what you believe is right and wrong can be totally different than someone else's sense of justice. You are right about this, and I agree! However, we all share the same morals. We all shared the same morals during the early centuries and we all shared the same morals even beyond those times.

Everyone agrees that killing is wrong. We say to ourselves, "Death is terrible and it makes us sad." However, even without killing, people still die. Either from diseases, plagues, starvation, accidents and etc. So, the question is, even though death still exists, what foundation did the act of killing become a moral taboo? I'm not asking about why its wrong. I'm asking where did the idea that its wrong come from? Animals kill all the time to survive. Humans, during the BCE era had to kill to survive too. In poor countries with unstable governments, people have to kill to stay alive. So, what is the foundation for "killing is wrong"? Scientifically speaking, I have no clue!

Really? Everyone agrees killing is always wrong, how about self defense, or to protect a valued thing or person. Death is always terrible and makes us sad, even when someone is in unbearable agony that can never be taken away accept by death, or an evil person like Hitler is killed? What are you 10 years old? It is quite obvious that if you don't want something done to you or a loved one it is morally wrong---how much brain power does that take? What in the hell does morality have to do with science. And what the hell does religion have to with it for that matter? Morality is something our higher powers of intelligence and feelings create, and it isn't a black and white issue that is a fallacy of sound reasoning. What you are trying to do is show that religion somehow has all the answers with a magic man in the sky and science doesn't. Well science has a lot of answers that religion doesn't too, like why is religion so important for morality when it has caused so much strife and pain and suffering for thousands of years and still does from lack of knowledge thinking it is knowledge when it is only primitive superstitious nonsense, while science has made are lives better than even Kings had in the past. Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on March 19, 2015, 04:42:19 PM
1) Really? Everyone agrees killing is always wrong, how about self defense, or to protect a valued thing or person.

2) Death is always terrible and makes us sad, even when someone is in unbearable agony that can never be taken away accept by death, or an evil person like Hitler is killed? What are you 10 years old?

3) It is quite obvious that if you don't want something done to you or a loved one it is morally wrong---how much brain power does that take?

4) What in the hell does morality have to do with science. And what the hell does religion have to with it for that matter?

5) Morality is something our higher powers of intelligence and feelings create, and it isn't a black and white issue that is a fallacy of sound reasoning.

6) What you are trying to do is show that religion somehow has all the answers with a magic man in the sky and science doesn't. Well science has a lot of answers that religion doesn't too, like why is religion so important for morality when it has caused so much strife and pain and suffering for thousands of years and still does from lack of knowledge thinking it is knowledge when it is only primitive superstitious nonsense, while science has made are lives better than even Kings had in the past. Solitary

Wow. You had a light to say in that one paragraph.

1) I dunno if you can call "self-defense" killing. Sure you can kill someone in self-defense. However, killing insinuates a pattern. However, to make things easier for you to understand, we'll use the word "murder". Better?

2) I see you're taking my little example and running with it.

3) Well.... It has been documented that some mothers will mercy kill their child if they feel they will be tortured. You're kind of arguing "the grey" and missing the point entirely.

4) What does morality have to do with science? I've been asking that same question. What does religion has to do with morality? Well, religion appears to aim toward the realm of consciousness in which science cannot enter. So, religion may have a lot to do with it.

5) I partially agree with this.

6) I am? I haven't mentioned religion until now. Seems like you're making assumption on what my argument really is about.

Quote from: Qchan on March 19, 2015, 03:13:48 PM
Were you aware that the world's sense of morality was much much different before the turn of the millennium? Mankind was pretty primitive and barbaric when it came to morality. Our morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically since those times. You claim that morality is subjective because what you believe is right and wrong can be totally different than someone else's sense of justice. You are right about this, and I agree! However, we all share the same morals. We all shared the same morals during the early centuries and we all shared the same morals even beyond those times.

I don't understand how morality is subjective but "morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically." By what objective measure? You agree with Solomon Zorn that morality is subjective but say we have always shared the same morals. By morals do you mean values?

I guess you have no idea what neurology is. You win the award for being the most obtuse person I have ever came across, and I worked around Mongos (Dutch) and the mentally retarded.  It's been fun, but even having fun has its limits accept for drug addicts, obsessive neurotics and the insane.  :cool:  :flowers: :rolleyes: Solitary

Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 19, 2015, 05:08:24 PM
I don't understand how morality is subjective but "morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically." By what objective measure? You agree with Solomon Zorn that morality is subjective but say we have always shared the same morals. By morals do you mean values?

I was anticipating this form of reply. I changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying. I will break down my wording so you could see precisely what I'm getting at.

1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

2) I then explained a single moral many of us all share to emphasize the point I'm making. I made a few contrasts to show that the moral doesn't make sense. I pointed out how killing was necessary for the survival of mankind over the ages. Even animals practiced killing so they could live.

3) I then asked where did that moral come from after knowing the necessity of killing.

QuoteI changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying.

Oh believe me, we understand what you are saying.  :rotflmao: :lol: Solitary

Quote from: Qchan on March 19, 2015, 05:20:36 PM
I was anticipating this form of reply. I changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying. I will break down my wording so you could see precisely what I'm getting at.

1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

2) I then explained a single moral many of us all share to emphasize the point I'm making. I made a few contrasts to show that the moral doesn't make sense. I pointed out how killing was necessary for the survival of mankind over the ages. Even animals practiced killing so they could live.

3) I then asked where did that moral come from after knowing the necessity of killing.

Thanks. I now understand your reasoning.

Quote1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

I disagree. Consensus morality does not equal objective morality.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 19, 2015, 10:31:06 PM
I disagree. Consensus morality does not equal objective morality.

Solomon. Could you answer the question? What is the foundation of morality?

Quote from: Qchan on March 19, 2015, 11:33:48 PM
Solomon. Could you answer the question? What is the foundation of morality?

Mine or yours?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 20, 2015, 05:04:53 AM
Mine or yours?

You can't speak for me, Solomon. So, please speak on your own behalf.

I think you missed the point of my question. There is no "foundation of morality" in any universal sense. My own subjective morality, since you asked, is probably best described as enlightened self-interest. I try to live by the Golden Rule.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 09, 2015, 01:01:35 PM
Here's something else to think about, Johnny: You yourself have shown a propensity to pick and choose, at least a little, what commands of God apply to us from the Bible. So then what are your objective criteria for deciding what parts of the Bible to follow (love thy neighbor), and what parts you can violate (stoning)?

My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.  At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 03, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.

Wow. You just made the most self-contradictory statement I've maybe ever seen. You just described subjective morality, and called it, "objective."

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 03, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

My morals are based on the Golden Rule: do to others, as you would have them do to you. Does that sound "arbitrary?" While your at it, show how it's "self refuting."

You pointed out in the beginning that we have debated morality on here a few times, which is true. And every one of those debates concluded that morality is subjective, but yet you state there is an objective morality. Morality is subjective because people's supposed world view is subjective. Look at a single topic, gay marriage. Among Christians, a vocal minority insist that it is evil and will end the world. A bigger percentage statistically adopt the same attitude as most of us do that it is a civil right. Yet by the claim of the loud fundamentalist conservatism it is evil and wrong, marriage is god given and so on.

I cannot think of a single moral topic that has one universal consensus. Death for people convicted of murder versus life imprisonment? I've asked that of six different pastors in a church and gotten exactly even responses-3 said it is wrong, 3 said it was justified. See? Universality implies consensus across the board, and that doesn't exist.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 03, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
You--My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.
Me--What is the 'nature of God' and how do you know what it is? 

You-- My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.
Me--Then is the OT no longer to be followed? How do you know one way or the other??  For you, what is an 'objective law' and what is a subjective law?  How is that determined?

You-  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.
Me--How does God reveal to you what is good or bad?  I still have no idea how you determine an objective law from any other type of God given law.  Why would God give different types of law?  And if God is 'all-good', how could he perform genocide?  How is that good?

  You--At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.
Me--Really?  So far how you do that is a mystery to me.  Where does your 'worldview' come from?  Don't tell me 'God'--I realize that.  In what form do you get it--the Bible, your minister, praying, or was it revealed to you at birth???

You-- The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.
Me--You make a common mistake of lumping all atheists under one umbrella.  We do not all think alike.  We, as a group simply do not believe in any god or gods.  Beyond that atheists believe whatever they want.  I can't speak for others, but my worldview is not arbitrary, in fact I see them as less arbitrary than yours.  I have no idea what 'self refuting' is referring to.  I see you entire line of argument as being quite arbitrary.  Apparently you cherry pick the Bible for laws you like and discard the laws you don't like; and then you treat the laws you don't like as though they did not exist.  That is the very definition of the word, arbitrary. 

  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

JohnnyB, you should research, at least a little bit, the canonization of the various books of the Bible. If you do, you will soon find that the New Testament is a highly subjective collection of documents. There was no divine mandate about what should be included. Subjective men, with subjective minds and subjective criteria, selected from many different gospels, and epistles to come up with the Bible you are calling, “objective.” The Book of Revelation, for example, wasn't included until the fourth century, and was highly disputed at that time.

Once again every Christian should see the PBS Nova series show, "Buried Secrets of the Bible" which is free on the internet. Explains the origins of the Bible, how and why the Old Testment was compiled and so on. The New Testament was not written by Jews for Jewish people but by Romans for Romans in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries.  The garden of Eden is allegory borrowed from Babylonian myth as was Noah's flood, and there is no evidence that Exodus happened. The three main events of the Old Testament are demonstrably false, and the New Testament is demonstrably created from numerous manuscripts either accepted or rejected by a politically minded early clergy

The Christian book of the dead is bullshit. So much for your morality.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 03, 2015, 09:57:21 AM
JohnnyB, you should research, at least a little bit, the canonization of the various books of the Bible. If you do, you will soon find that the New Testament is a highly subjective collection of documents. There was no divine mandate about what should be included. Subjective men, with subjective minds and subjective criteria, selected from many different gospels, and epistles to come up with the Bible you are calling, “objective.” The Book of Revelation, for example, wasn't included until the fourth century, and was highly disputed at that time.

I did that awhile ago and found it to be hugely interesting!  For some reasons my Christian friends seemed to think that the Bible plopped to earth one day as a totally finished product.  Actually, it is a creation of some very deep and dirty politics.  What a surprise!  (Not!!)  We (humans) do not have an 'original' bible to work from.  We just have bits and pieces of recovered material.  None of which agrees with any other fragment.  I believe the oldest fragment dates from the 300's.  Not all bibles are equal in that not all agree with each other, either.  Go into any bible book store and you will find literally hundreds of different versions, all having different material.  And they all are The Word Of God?????  Those are the reasons the usual, typical zian has no interest in the history of either their bible or their religion.  They are and remain, willfully ignorant.  And they are praised for it by the hierarchy of whatever church they belong to.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 03, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.  At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

Your morality is basically the definition of subjective. It's full of "me me me me me." No point back-pedaling now, you've already admitted that nothing about your moral compass is objective. QED. Bye bye, see you later.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 03, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.

through truthfully the god I believe in demands it not once or twice but many times..

QuoteI try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'.

but i ignore the very demands he makes as incorrect because the god is all good and nothing he does is not good therefore all the stuff he wants to do that is not good is really not what a good god would ask for therefore it is not good and not from a good god….get it?

QuoteIt is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.

WORD DUDES!

So either live a life of denial based on a set of unproven principles or draw conclusions based on evidence. Religion is not created whole cloth by god and delivered to earth. Every religion, thousands of them, were created by men. If thousands of men can invent thousands of religions, why is your one religion special and different? And the god of the bible is very much prone to exhibit human traits- jealousy, wrath, punitive behavior and so on. There is no universal constant of moral principles and never has been.

Why does a god so big that it created an entire universe have to exhibit his existence to one specific set of sheepherders in an area contained in a few thousand square miles and ignore the rest of the world and all of the universe? And interestingly enough, every other god has the same traits- delivered to only a specific group, existing in a specific geographical location, and not regarding any other culture or (then unknown) that also exists elsewhere on the same planet, in many cases only a few thousand miles away.

Sorry, but rational thinking and logic don't agree with your religion or your objective morality.

I was watching one of the debates Richard Dawkins was having over religion and the subject of morality came up.

It was the usual trite of how people believing you can't have morality without religion because books like the qu'ran or bible have stories in them about morality. Now Dawkins agreed there are passages in the bible that had certain moral verses, as  “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” certain things we outselves know can have moral standards, as in not fucking around with your friends wife/husband, or not killing people in cold blood, or stealing from people.
But, as Dawkins went on, what about the other teachings in the bible that directly conflict and contradict things, like owning slaves, killing gays, keeping women in place and under the man. As Dawkins said, these are stories made up by an ancient culture that didn't have the moral basis we have today, and we ourselves learned that it isn't right to own slaves, killing people for being different, oppressing someone for their gender, we learned this because we evolved and educated ourselves, learning the value of empathy, to understand what it is like to walk a mile in another mans shoes, how would it feel ourselves to be slaves, to be oppressed because of our differences and killed for it.

We learned morality on our own by experience as a species, we know what pain is so we can understand what pain is to someone else, we don't need some bullshit book of ancient fairy tales to tell us this, as a species, we have empathy.. or we are meant to.. some people haven't developed empathy as well as others.

This subject has been discussed time and time again. The religious believe you can't have morals with out god because their holy book tells them so. But those of us with out religion know that isn't true. I feel like most of us here are more moral than theists. I could be wrong since I don't know any one personally but based on opinions I've seen I can attest that we (as in atheists on this forum) have them.

We are the living proof that, that bible teaching is incorrect. Atheists can be just as moral as the religious and in my opinion more so.

There are so many bible teachings that are false I can't even begin to list them. The book is not infallible there for not a holy book.

QuoteMy objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.

  You are making judgements based on what you think is good, that is subjective.

QuoteAt least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.

    No you don't, there are rules in the bible , that is for sure, but for the most part no reason is given other than "God said so"  And as has been shown, you are using your selective judgement as to what is "good"

QuoteThe atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

   First, there is no atheistic worldview. That only refers to our common shared lack of belief. I'm sure someone must have pointed this out to you already.

   Second, our morals are anything but arbitrary, as we have to explain ourselves,  at no time can we say " Well it's in that book" , we don't have the option of referring to a book, we have to explain ourselves.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 03, 2015, 08:42:02 AM
Wow. You just made the most self-contradictory statement I've maybe ever seen. You just described subjective morality, and called it, "objective."
My morals are based on the Golden Rule: do to others, as you would have them do to you. Does that sound "arbitrary?" While your at it, show how it's "self refuting."

Solomon, you have seriously misjudged my first statements.  Can I assume that for the sake of discussion, that if you pretend that my worldview is true, then obviously my morality is not subjective, correct?  If an all-good God does exist, then the foundation of morality abides in Him and we therefore have a duty to follow such laws that He gives us.  It is FAR from subjective, and I am sure you would agree.
Unfortunately, without an objective basis for following the Golden Rule, your morals are indeed arbitrary.  You have said that you get your morals from your evolved sensibilities.  I see no objective standard in that, therefore for you to say that someone should follow the Golden Rule would be arbitrarily dictating how that person should live their life.  Since you do not believe in an objective standard for morality, your moral system (and every other non-theists) is arbitrary by definition.  I would refer you to Alvin Plantinga's 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism' to reveal your moral systems self-refuting nature. 

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 06, 2015, 05:45:12 AM
If an all-good God does exist, 

is this the same one that tortured million by slow death of drowning instead of just snapping them into non-existence? What would be the reasoning for slow death for a god that is sending them to hell anyway? Personal joy? Is this also the same god that demanded his followers bash the heads of infants against the rocks and for the men to rape little girls? Please tell us how this translates into "all-good". Really! I think your rationalizing this would be a fascinating study into psychosis.

QuoteSolomon, you have seriously misjudged my first statements.

I colored the claims of objectivity in red, and the statements of subjectivity in blue. How is that misjudging them? You don't seem to give your own speech the same critical eye that you give mine.

QuoteCan I assume that for the sake of discussion, that if you pretend that my worldview is true, then obviously my morality is not subjective, correct? If an all-good God does exist, then the foundation of morality abides in Him and we therefore have a duty to follow such laws that He gives us.  It is FAR from subjective, and I am sure you would agree.

Incorrect! Whether God exists or not, his morality is not known to you in an objective way. You would have to be God, for your morality to be objective, or at least have him tell you directly what his morals are. You only have the Bible, and it is a compilation of manuscripts, selected by the early church as “inspired.” That is to say it was their judgment what to put in, and what to leave out. That makes it SUBJECTIVE. Then you form your theology from one part (the New Testament) and use it to override commands in another part (the Old Testament). Again, SUBJECTIVE.

Answer me this, Johnny, did you research the canonization of the Christian Bible, like I suggested? If you do, be sure to include secular sources, as well as religious ones.

QuoteUnfortunately, without an objective basis for following the Golden Rule, your morals are indeed arbitrary.  You have said that you get your morals from your evolved sensibilities.  I see no objective standard in that, therefore for you to say that someone should follow the Golden Rule would be arbitrarily dictating how that person should live their life.  Since you do not believe in an objective standard for morality, your moral system (and every other non-theists) is arbitrary by definition.

Wrong again. Subjective does not equal arbitrary. My morals are, in fact , thoughtfully considered and pondered and questioned. They come from my mother and father. They come from my peers. They come from years of experience, including a time spent believing exactly as you do. They come from life. They are therefore much more solid, and defensible, than those that come ready-made from a book.

QuoteI see no objective standard in that,

That's because there is no objective standard. Why do you keep looking for my subjective morality to have an objective standard? If it had one, it wouldn't be subjective, now would it?

QuoteI would refer you to Alvin Plantinga's 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism' to reveal your moral systems self-refuting nature.

I'm not arguing with Alvin Plantinga. If you say the Golden Rule is self-refuting, then please demonstrate how, yourself.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 06, 2015, 05:45:12 AM
Solomon, you have seriously misjudged my first statements.  Can I assume that for the sake of discussion, that if you pretend that my worldview is true, then obviously my morality is not subjective, correct?  If an all-good God does exist, then the foundation of morality abides in Him and we therefore have a duty to follow such laws that He gives us.  It is FAR from subjective, and I am sure you would agree.

Johnny, my friend, you have seriously misjudged your statements.  And your worldview.  I assume you get your worldview from the Bible--I am seriously asking this next question---have you read it  carefully and with due diligence?  I really am not sure you have.  Seems to me you have been skimming and not reading with the intent of fully understanding what it is you have read.  Here is a challenge for you, if you are up for it.  Can you explain to me what the 10 Commandments are and why you think that?  (Surely, the 10 Commandments are foundational to your worldview)

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 06, 2015, 05:45:12 AM
Solomon, you have seriously misjudged my first statements.  Can I assume that for the sake of discussion, that if you pretend that my worldview is true, then obviously my morality is not subjective, correct?  If an all-good God does exist, then the foundation of morality abides in Him and we therefore have a duty to follow such laws that He gives us.  It is FAR from subjective, and I am sure you would agree.
Unfortunately, without an objective basis for following the Golden Rule, your morals are indeed arbitrary.  You have said that you get your morals from your evolved sensibilities.  I see no objective standard in that, therefore for you to say that someone should follow the Golden Rule would be arbitrarily dictating how that person should live their life.  Since you do not believe in an objective standard for morality, your moral system (and every other non-theists) is arbitrary by definition.  I would refer you to Alvin Plantinga's 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism' to reveal your moral systems self-refuting nature.

  You cannot claim objective morality until you prove, objectively , the source exists.

  Further , and let's for the sake of argument state your God exists , how do you know said god is objective ? or even moral ? you do so by basing it on your beliefs, and your beliefs only.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 06, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
Answer me this, Johnny, did you research the canonization of the Christian Bible, like I suggested? If you do, be sure to include secular sources, as well as religious ones.

I am sorry Solomon, but this simply has nothing to do with our discussion on morality, our problem here is that we MAY be working with two different definitions of 'God'.  I will try to further explain to clarify this. 

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 06, 2015, 09:00:21 AMIncorrect! Whether God exists or not, his morality is not known to you in an objective way. You would have to be God, for your morality to be objective, or at least have him tell you directly what his morals are. You only have the Bible, and it is a compilation of manuscripts, selected by the early church as “inspired.” Subjective does not equal arbitrary. My morals are, in fact , thoughtfully considered and pondered and questioned. They come from my mother and father. They come from my peers. They come from years of experience, including a time spent believing exactly as you do. They come from life. 

I first find it curious how you know that God's morality has not been made present to me in an objective way, nonetheless are we in agreement that when we use the word 'God' we are referring to a being who is maximally great?  I think this may be a critical issue for our discussion here.  The Bible has nothing to do with what I am arguing about (l'll explain).  God by definition is maximally great in his nature.  He would be All-Holy if he was maximally great and so would be a source of objective morality for anyone to follow.  Solomon, when you say that I would have to be God in order for my morality to be objective, you seem to be open to the idea that whoever God is then His morality would serve as an objective source, (that any non-divine being could follow if he/she so wishes).  So if God (maximally great being) exists, then we have a source for objective morality.  That is all I am arguing here, NOT that we know God is the objective source of morality because we get that teaching from the Bible.  Your confusing the issue Solomon to try and make my morality subjective.

Next I just want to say that I am sure you have greatly pondered and thought out your morals.  However, your moral-based system is still arbitrary by definition (Dictionary.com: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction).  You can surely use your evolved sensibilities and life experiences to come up with what seems to be a good moral system, but such a system is based on your subjective preferences in the end. Now I know you have no problem with understanding your morality to be subjective, but what I do not think you understand the apprehensive perception of what your moral system entails.  I am sure you re-call my hypothetical world where the Nazi's win WW2 and brainwash everyone into thinking that what they were doing was right.  I think you would agree that even if everyone was brainwashed in that world, then the Nazi's would still be doing wrong. You may not want to admit it, but if you say that the Nazi's are still doing wrong (even though everyone is brainwashed into thinking that the Nazi's are 'good-guys' and are doing the right thing) then you actually believe in an objective standard of morality. I would like to casually extend the idea that perhaps your sense of objective morality does indeed come from an objective source (God?).
 

QuoteGod by definition is maximally great in his nature.  He would be All-Holy if he was maximally great and so would be a source of objective morality for anyone to follow.  Solomon, when you say that I would have to be God in order for my morality to be objective, you seem to be open to the idea that whoever God is then His morality would serve as an objective source, (that any non-divine being could follow if he/she so wishes).  So if God (maximally great being) exists, then we have a source for objective morality.  That is all I am arguing here, NOT that we know God is the objective source of morality because we get that teaching from the Bible.

If you don't use the Bible as your objective source and you are using a god who is "maximally great" how do you know this god exists and how do you know what this god wants?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 10, 2015, 06:14:07 AM
I am sorry Solomon...

Me too. You don't know how to reason, and your rationalizations are growing tiresome. I have fully demonstrated that your morality is just as subjective as any atheist. But you simply disregard everything I say, and continue to repeat the same statements that I've already refuted. If you can't be persuaded by clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face logic, then you can't be persuaded. So the value of this conversation is nullified. I am done. But one last question: how old are you? About 22?

More whack a doodle crap from an idiot. "I get my morality from god who is not really the evil god of the bible but who is described in the bible but incorrectly. He is all goog and moral, and all the good stuff is true but the bad stuff is not. I like peanut butter, but not made of peanuts or spreadable like butter"

Jesus H this is stupid. Morality existed when we were proto humans. We know that because elements of morality exist in primates, community behavior showing altruism and self sacrifice for the good of the whole. We've seen examples of cruelty between species and also among species, and likewise moral behavior between and among species.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that your version of religious morality is not shared within your own religion, from sect to sect and even from preacher to preacher? One set of "believers" calling for the stoning of gays, another saying tolerate and embrace them. One group of Baptists allowing gay marriage, another against it. There is no universal component even within your own faith, let alone between faiths and from one set of fundamentalists to another set of liberals. The bible is no standard for morality or anything else. I was a Christian for many years. I sat in different congregations and heard different interpretations of the same scriptures. The bible is the most cherry picked and misquoted book on the planet.

We've had this debate many times and the conclusion is always the same- morality is subjective. You are either too dense to be on the forum or a troll, and frankly I think the latter.

It's always sad when a person like this claims to follow objective morality, not realizing that by pulling their god out of thin air they are actually being even more arbitrary than we are. My morality is based on observation and reasoning. Johnny is just following a voice in his head. Who is actually being arbitrary, here?

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 10, 2015, 06:14:07 AM
.  I will try to further explain to clarify this.  I first find it curious how you know that God's morality has not been made present to me in an objective way, 

  Show the objective evidence.

Well, Johnny, since you don't seem to be up for my challenge--can you comment  on whether or not you think the 10 commandments are moral in your world view?????

No fair, Mike- you played the 10 Commandments card. How DARE you????  :naughty:

Quote from: stromboli on May 10, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
No fair, Mike- you played the 10 Commandments card. How DARE you????  :naughty:

I'm betting he can't even list them correctly--even if he uses cut-and-paste.

It's wrong because I say it's wrong

There. Trial over.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 10, 2015, 07:20:44 AM
Me too. You don't know how to reason, and your rationalizations are growing tiresome. I have fully demonstrated that your morality is just as subjective as any atheist. But you simply disregard everything I say, and continue to repeat the same statements that I've already refuted. If you can't be persuaded by clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face logic, then you can't be persuaded. So the value of this conversation is nullified. I am done. But one last question: how old are you? About 22?

Ya im in my twenties.  I would personally like to thank you for your time in this discussion.  I do hope you keep an open mind to God's existence.  He certainly is ready to offer much peace and satisfaction to any non-believer.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 10, 2015, 02:45:19 PM
Well, Johnny, since you don't seem to be up for my challenge--can you comment  on whether or not you think the 10 commandments are moral in your world view?????

Sure, I'll take your challenge.  I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God.  Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good. 

The Principles of Maat got you beat by 2,000 years.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7701.0

And that is at least 15 centuries before Judaism was even in existence.

You lose.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 12, 2015, 06:56:23 AM
Sure, I'll take your challenge.  I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God.  Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good.

That's nice--what are they???  Can you list them?

Tell us how you know they're given by God while you're at it

Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 12, 2015, 11:43:07 AM
Tell us how you know they're given by God while you're at it

Lol. This guy is a brick wall. Any logic or sound argument is just so many tennis balls bounced off of it.

It never ceases to amaze me that xtians can claim universal god given objective morality, but when you point out that

A.The 10 commandments was clearly borrowed from earlier codexes of law like the Codex Hammurabi and the Codex Ur Mammu
B. doesn't exclude rape and slavery, nor disallow the keeping of concubines or multiple wives; all of which is now verboten.
C. Was unheard of in dozens of countries prior to the advent of xtianity.

Like I said, brick wall.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 12, 2015, 06:56:23 AM
Sure, I'll take your challenge.  I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God.  Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good.

How do you know God is moral ?

First off, God can't stop drinking enough wine to remember to follow his own laws.

"Hey Moses, tell them THOU SHALT NOT KILL!"

"ok God..."

"Hey Joshua, take the land and kill all the men, women, and children. Then take all their shit with you for good measure!"

"ok God..."

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2015, 10:46:39 AM
That's nice--what are they???  Can you list them?

Ten Commandments Exodus 20:1-17
1.  You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below to worship.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your mother and father.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house, wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 16, 2015, 05:33:50 AM
Ten Commandments Exodus 20:1-17
1.  You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below to worship.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your mother and father.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house, wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Mike, hit it.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2015, 06:21:52 AM
Mike, hit it.

Urm.. OK!

(http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/aie/B5E/aieB5EXi4.gif)(http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/aie/B5E/aieB5EXi4.gif)(http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/aie/B5E/aieB5EXi4.gif)
"Hello my Baby, Hello my Honey, Hello my Ragtime gal.."

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 16, 2015, 05:33:50 AM
Ten Commandments Exodus 20:1-17
1.  You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below to worship.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your mother and father.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house, wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Thank you, Johnny for answering.  I really did not think you would.  Okay--there is so much incorrect with what you are saying here--where to start.  You list these as The 10 Commandments.  Why?  Nowhere in Ex. does the word 'commandments' appear.  Ex 20 starts by saying, "Then God spoke all these words."  Chpt. 21 talks of 'ordinances' , not commandments.  As I indicated before, only in Ex. 34 are the words "10 Commandments" used--and then they are listed.  Why not use them?  And why are they different than the rules that you listed?  And what of the other 613 other commandments listed in the OT for people to follow?  Those don't count?  And don't tell me that Jesus did away with those commandments--any of them-, for he told us in 3/4 places that the Law was not done away with, for he tells us that the Law is still in force, for he did not change one dotted 'i' or crossed 't'.  I'll say again, only one place in the Bible is it stated that the following is the 10 Commandments.  Yet you ignore them?  Why?  Maybe you don't really read the Bible and only listen to what an 'elder' tells you?   Could that be it?  Maybe you should really read your Bible and then you should really research it--find out what it says--what it really says--then think about it.  And then pray about it--as Jesus commands you to do--go into your closet and pray--not to pray in public or for public show, but into your closet so you can really pray and think. 

Points to consider.  In your list, God commands you to give your 'slave' the Sabbath off.  And that you shall not covet your neighbor's 'slave'.  So, in your moral world, slavery is quite okay?  It is moral?  Also, a man's wife is considered his property, and shall not be coveted.  So, in your moral world, it is okay to consider your wife to be chattel?  God does.  And in the 6th Commandment, is the proper word 'murder' and not kill?  How do you know?  And what is 'murder'?  What does that mean?  Is war okay?  Is it a moral act? 

Also, in Deu. 5, another list similar to the one you posted, calls them 'statues and ordinances' , not Commandments.  Why two lists sort of like the one you listed?  And why the 3rd that is expressly called 'The 10 Commandments'????  Is it possible that we have 3 different people giving us three different versions or what God wants?  If so, which one is the 'real' one?  Surely you do not still think of Moses as a real person, do you?  If so, maybe some heartfelt research is in order for you.  Also, in these 3 places it is indicated that God wants these commandments, statutes and ordinances followed in the 'new' land they are to occupy.  It does not really indicate they need to be followed when they leave 'the promised land'.  And it does not state that the 'promised land' is to be their home forever.

I could go on.  But I realize this must be a very difficult topic for you to fully address.  It would take a great deal of courage to do so--if you do it with any kind of critical thinking going on.  And this is  some thing that you should do by yourself--unless you'd like to call upon the help of any number of helpful and understanding atheists.  There are a number of them on this board--ask, and yea shall receive.   

(Stromboli realizes at this point he is out of popcorn........)

This is a post I posted on another thread and my give you food for thought, Johnny.

The torah also calls this list the Ten Commandments. (Ex 34) I have the Jerusalem Bible, which looks identical to what I posted, except they are called The Ten Words.  I also have version of the bible called The Book, and it is identical to what I posted and it too, calls them the Ten Commandments.

It is also interesting (to me, anyway) that at the time Jesus was supposed to be alive, the Holy Scripture was only the OT.  The NT came along quite a bit later.  And there were two main versions of it (and many other versions, as well), the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint which was in Greek--the Hebrew Bible was in Hebrew or Aramaic.  Paul uses the Septuagint when he quotes Holy Scripture.  How do we know?  Because there are many verses and phrases that are different in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.  And he always uses the Septuagint version.  Plus, no scripture was broken down into chapters or were the verses numbered.  That came much later.  So, from the beginning of Christianity, there was confusion/manipulation about what was said in the scriptures.

So, Johnny, if you really want to know about your religion and it's Word, go back to the beginning of the canoning process and see what was kept and what was discarded, and why in both instances.  It is a very, very interesting--and long story.  But, once again, that would take courage on your part. 

17 pages? We are way past beating a dead horse. This thread is now officially compost.

Quote from: stromboli on May 16, 2015, 09:40:30 PM
17 pages? We are way past beating a dead horse. This thread is now officially compost.

Oh please, this guy's got nothing on Old Seer and Eve yet.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 16, 2015, 05:33:50 AM
Ten Commandments Exodus 20:1-17
1.  You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below to worship.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your mother and father.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house, wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Now, these first four. Why are they important to morality at large?

Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 17, 2015, 04:05:46 AM
Now, these first four. Why are they important to morality at large?

They're obviously not.  They have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.  These were thrown in for woo purposes only, imo.

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on March 06, 2015, 05:35:29 AM
   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?

For this atheist, a place NOT to get morals from is the bible. A vile, disgusting piece of 'literature' constructed for the purpose of subjugating the desert tribes into servitude for the benefit a handful of power-hungry men.

Heres some of the disgusting, immoral things the bible tries to float:

- Giving the death penalty to kids for disrespecting their parents
- Forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist (Moses' law)
- Sleeping with your dad because no other men were around (Lot and his daughters)
- Having thousands of wives and concubines (Solomon)
- Offering your daughters for mass rape (Lot and his daughters)
- Slavery (throughout the bible)
- Mass murder and genocide or killing people because they worshiped other Gods.

A 3rd-grader can tell this stuff is just wrong.   

Well, except for Solomon's thousands of wives and concubines part.  I don't see any harm in that as long as everyone involved were willing participants!    :syda:

Quote from: SkyChief on May 17, 2015, 12:48:24 PM
For this atheist, a place NOT to get morals from is the bible. A vile, disgusting piece of 'literature' constructed for the purpose of subjugating the desert tribes into servitude for the benefit a handful of power-hungry men.

Heres some of the disgusting, immoral things the bible tries to float:

- Giving the death penalty to kids for disrespecting their parents
- Forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist (Moses' law)
- Sleeping with your dad because no other men were around (Lot and his daughters)
- Having thousands of wives and concubines (Solomon)
- Offering your daughters for mass rape (Lot and his daughters)
- Slavery (throughout the bible)
- Mass murder and genocide or killing people because they worshiped other Gods.

A 3rd-grader can tell this stuff is just wrong.   

Well, except for Solomon's thousands of wives and concubines part.  I don't see any harm in that as long as everyone involved were willing participants!    :syda:

Wait, wait, wait.....................tell me again what's wrong with this one................- Giving the death penalty to kids for disrespecting their parents.  ????

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2015, 12:51:51 PM
Wait, wait, wait.....................tell me again what's wrong with this one................- Giving the death penalty to kids for disrespecting their parents.  ????

It'd certainly cut down my experience with every sibling and cousin I'd have in existence but I mean if it's a law...

      In the old testament you have

      "Honour thy father and thy mother"

        Or you die

In the new testament you have


  Luke 14:26       If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.


  It's was hard to be a christian kid, having to hate your parents but still honour them at the same time.






 

Hello..I am a gay guy, 46, ex-Catholic and dealing with some guilt issues, wanting forgiveness, absolution, understanding, shame.. it's likely all from a place of self-concern and self-acceptance...I did not commit a murder, shooting, molestation, arson, nothing along those lines that, if i really wanted to serve my time for my ethical crimes, i would turn myself in the the law..
It's personal stuff, heavy, painful, deeply emotional, and thus challenged by ethical ideas of the head, but my sins are from my heart.
i'm a sensitive person, and also far too concerned with others' external judgement of me and my wrongs, and the issue of guilt and forgiveness is one that is hampered, fenced-in by my location and the reputation i've made, partly-true and partly false..
I'm in a big city, but the gay male community is very tight; everything you say or do, wear or date, is public knowledge. And once you get a bad rep, deserved or not, people love to judge and share it. A reputation is important, what you say or do cannot be undone, or revised, like cutting open a feather pillow on a windy day, and then trying to put all back together..it's painful, and I don't believe in waht seems an 'easy out', telling God and then able to let it go, according to my specific former faith doctrine...thanks SO much..if i share my dirty laundry, i am asking for as many comments / insights as possible...I'll be more brief when i do share it...

Thanks for sharing, and you are not alone here. You are a good example of how Christianity, Judea, Islamic religions teach guilt from ancient texts from ignorance based on faith from authority that were delusional, insane, or just plain wrong in their beliefs, just like most of them still are. Sin is a made up idea to control people by religious authority for their benefit. What makes them think they know what is right and wrong just because religious dogma claims to know? If there was a God He would have already killed me many times He has tried if he existed, because I am probably the greatest sinner according to Puritan ethics that are silly and very dangerous to people's mental health. I don't have a problem with religion that helps people cope with the human condition, but I sure do with religious authority and churches and the Church that tell you what you can't do, and never explain why and just explain with religious bull shit. Solitary

Hi Daniel, by all means, if you feel comfortable talking about it, please do.

Those are only the main rules, as if they are not hypocritical enough. You can also stone your own children for misbehaving  and murder a woman for cheating.