Morality

[aitm]

  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..

I 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?

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

WORD DUDES!

[stromboli]

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.

[Munch]

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.

[doorknob]

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.

[Termin]

My 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.

At 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"

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).

   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.

[JohnnyB1993]

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. 

[aitm]

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.

[Solomon Zorn]

Solomon, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I 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?

I 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.

[Mike Cl]

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)

[Termin]

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.

[JohnnyB1993]

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. 

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.” 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?).
 

[GSOgymrat]

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.

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?

[Solomon Zorn]

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?

[aitm]

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"

[stromboli]

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.