Morality

[JohnnyB1993]

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?

[JohnnyB1993]

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?

[SGOS]

The Christian God is immoral.

[SGOS]

Muslims are sinful.

[hrdlr110]

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

[JohnnyB1993]

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.

[JohnnyB1993]

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.   

[Mr.Obvious]

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).

[JohnnyB1993]

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.

[SGOS]

Morality changes as God responds to public demand.

[SNP1]

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.

[undercoverbrother]

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?

[undercoverbrother]

Is it good enough to say that that is just what I want?

No.

But I ran out of time. Maybe more later.

[Mr.Obvious]

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?

[Solomon Zorn]

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.