Morals without god/the bible

[jlay]

If cheese preference is only subjective and then one attempts to rank cheeses one is ignorantly stealing from the objective cheese scale to do so.

You can't be serious? Ranking cheese IS SUBJECTIVE. Your missing the point. All I am saying is that you need to embrace the reality of your worldview and stop borrowing from OM.
If morality is subjective, then all ethics are inherently no better or worse than another. Yes or no?

It might be in YOUR opinion, but the question then becomes so what? Opinions don't establish whether something has an inherent quality. If it is all subjective, then you have to admit that an ethic that considers genocide good has no more or less inherent value than your own. It doesn't matter how many people suffer or benefit. Why is human suffering significant? You are saying that there is something inherently more important regarding human life than in regards to the preference of ice cream flavors? I agree. But this is from the worldview of OM. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to.
All these other things you mention do not deal with whether OM exists. But your statements regarding them demonstrate you are stealing from OM. You know in your heart that genocide is WRONG, but you cling to the view that OM doesn't exist. A dilema. A contradiction.

Again I couldn't care if chocolate ice cream is inherently wrong and genocide inherently right. Preference for ice cream doesn't cause misery and suffering and preference for genocide does. I went to visit Auschwitz on my eighth birthday, I really don't need God to tell me that genocide is wrong. Exactly. OM is obvious enough that anyone can discover it.It's quite enough for me to horrified by it. Are you saying, you didn't have to be taught at 8 years old that genocide is wrong? That there was something intrinsic within you that said, WRONG!!!!!!What we need to realise is that genocide is a really big issue, it can affects the lives of millions a huge way, and ice cream preference is relatively trivial as it may bring forth an amusing conversation at the end of the odd dinner party or some philosophical chat at the worst.

I agree, but which worldview are you coming from to make such statements?
At 8 years old, did you say, "Man, the holocaust really doesn't mesh with the moral preferences of my culture." No. Why? Because the holocaust was inherently wrong. It wasn't wrong just because your culture said it was wrong. Although your culture may have rightly interpreted OM. It was wrong because it was WRONG, in and of itself. Period.

[Proinsias]

Sorry for taking so long, been a little busy and this is quite a hefty topic.

AoK:

You ask who is there to say if anything is bad? There are people to say things are bad.

I don't think objective moral judgments are necessary for evil, or God for that matter. All that is required is for someone to label something evil.

As Gerard J. Hughes notes: "The problem of evil cannot even be stated unless it is assumed that it is proper to speak of moral truth; and it cannot be stated
with much force unless it is assumed that moral does not simply depend on human conventions which could well have been quite different."

I don't use the word evil often, I don't expect it carry much force when I do. I don't feel much weight behind it when others use it.

I had no idea there was a 'problem of good'.

I'm not trying to make a case against God, just rather doubtful that morality is objective.

[Proinsias]

topic,

topic - God brings accountability irrespective of this, you are personally held accountable for your actions.

Proinsias - Unfortunately I can't take this as any more than an opinion

topic - No substance, just opinion. If not why not? What is your view? care to quantify your view?why do you not accept this view?

I'm not convinced that if God exists God is an accountant or a judge. I'm not sure what substance I can provide for that, maybe deism?

They clearly did not look at an objective moral guide but looked at what they subjectively percieved to be morally and justly correct.So explain if you will how they looking at it again would have changed there actions one iota?

How can you know they did not look at an objective moral guide? I would assume many involved in the highland clearances had knowledge of the bible, how are we to know that those involved were not trying to justify actions they believed to be subjectively or objectively morally wrong. Personal gain, revenge, power and wealth can get in the way of morals regardless if one believes they are subjective or objective. Just because something terrible has been carefully planned and orchestrated does not mean that its outcome could have been far less terrible if people took some time to think.
The invasion of Iraq was planned and orchestrated with knowledge and some of the really nasty stuff in the media is about soldiers not really thinking and going with the flow - which ends up with things like Abu Ghraib incidents.

again no substance.Do you think that the bible was only written by one person ? Why would they (collectively) do this?why would differant writers say the same thing knowing what had already happened to them in the past? why put themselves in such a position? If you look at the history of the Jewish nation, it did not work for them, so why keep going at it, why not just change the whole dynamics on the view of God to get on with everyone else? What gain have the jewish people achieved by this fallacious lie ?

I don't think the bible was written by one person.
As for why? faith I imagine. What gain? everlasting life with God.

You mentioned child marriage in some middle eastern countries, I said they believe in OM and that OM is not a defining factor in allowing child marriage. Their belief in OM often stems from the Bible or the Koran both of which talk of OM and both of which talk of child marriage.

Rosa Park was a product of a movement which had been in progress for decades if not longer. I expected people such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc to be your example?

So Hitler and co were not a product of a movement which....

Would Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King be any better for you?

I did! I thought you would have picked it up. Your view is subjective then so is my view. You look at what the cause would be too you but give no relevance to how i would act given the same latitude. Punishment holds no value for me, so the effect of my cause is that my act is more important. By your definition, if i make myself happy and my country then i am morally in the right.

Well if you feel you are morally correct then good for you, I do get the feeling that you are not actually being truthful with me here and that you are not ok with blowing up plane loads of people. I suspect the conversation would be more fruitful if you say what you mean instead of taking a hypothetical stance on mass murder you don't actually hold.

If punishment holds no value, does heaven or hell hold value? Why not blow up that plane if you feel it will make you happy, what's God going to do? punish you for eternity?

topic wrote:
I put this too you, that the law codifies a society's customs, norms, idea's and moral values. They encompase all that it is to be human within the society you find yourself in.

Proinsias - I don't agree.


topic - Interesting. That statement is what secular Philosophy of ethics perpetuates.Care to clarify what you base your view point on?what substance you are using as referance?

As I said earlier what encompasses all that it means to be human within a particular society is all the humans in that society.

The same God will also let Al Megrahi, Hitler and Stalin into heaven if they personally accept Jesus Christ as their savior moments before death and repent for their sins.

What Christian theology are you using to state this? Can you give me referance to support your claim?

My Christian theology may be a little shaky but I was under the impression that God alone knows who is going where after death, we can make reasonalb e bets based on Scripture but we cannot be certain. Augustine springs to mind, that we are spoiled by original sin and thus can't know with certainty who will or won't end up in heaven.

[Proinsias]

B.W

It is my belief that the laws of mathematics are created by humanity, not discovered. As Einstien said "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." . The laws of physics and mathematics only begin existing when we create them. They are tools we use for prediction, sometimes they break. The 2nd laws is held up as some great truth of the universe as it is one of the few things we have created and not managed to break yet.

So by seeing or experiencing the effect — you discover certain things are wrong. However if there are no right and wrongs then nothing you think is wrong is wrong.

Or do I create concepts of right and wrong and compare them with the concepts of others?
I don't think there are rights and wrongs, just as there are not such things as beauty or ugliness, I create them and compare them with others.

If you are not absolutely certain that Morality is subjective then would this not prove that Morality is not based on personal subjectivism due to uncertainty as you cannot trust even your own opinions?

No. It would prove I might not be right which I believe is a valuable thing for all of us to keep in mind.

Moral Law adjudicates between the different moral opinions people have. Without the standard of Moral Law that comes from a Moral Lawgiver (God), then we are left with just human opinions and uncertainty.

Yes. I would argue that even with the current ideas of OM we are left with human opinions and uncertainty. One who believes in OM has to pick an OM, interpret it and apply it.

Human beings were hardwired to explore and discover things. In this discovery we find that Moral Law exist because there is a Moral Law Giver who let's us discover. The Standard of Moral Law is God's very own nature of rightness, justice, etc and etc… who being who he is let's us explore and discover that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. In this you deem God unfair being that infinitely just to the unjust and just????

My kitten seems hard wired to explore and discover stuff, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not deeming God unfair, I just don't believe in OM.

If someone else beat you bloody by stealing your wallet and after stealing your gun, left you a paralyzed quadriplegic — would that be wrong?

If some else added even more context it could become even more complicated. Such is life, and why we have courts and legal systems, as this stuff is rarely as simple as right and wrong.

[Proinsias]

jlay:

You can't be serious? Ranking cheese IS SUBJECTIVE. Your missing the point. All I am saying is that you need to embrace the reality of your worldview and stop borrowing from OM.
If morality is subjective, then all ethics are inherently no better or worse than another. Yes or no?

Ethics, like cheese, are not inherently good or bad. I don't think I'm borrowing any more form OM than you are borrowing from the objective cheese scale if you rate some brie. I'm thinking I should have picked spaghetti instead of cheese.

It might be in YOUR opinion, but the question then becomes so what? Opinions don't establish whether something has an inherent quality. If it is all subjective, then you have to admit that an ethic that considers genocide good has no more or less inherent value than your own. It doesn't matter how many people suffer or benefit. Why is human suffering significant? You are saying that there is something inherently more important regarding human life than in regards to the preference of ice cream flavors? I agree. But this is from the worldview of OM. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to.

I really don't have a need for inherent value.

I have more headspace for human suffering than I do for ice cream preference because in my experience human suffering is far more important than ice cream preference. I'm not borrowing from OM, I'm relating to my fellow man. It's relative. In the same way that I have more headspace for the suffering of those closest to me than I do for the suffering of those far away from me.

All these other things you mention do not deal with whether OM exists. But your statements regarding them demonstrate you are stealing from OM. You know in your heart that genocide is WRONG, but you cling to the view that OM doesn't exist. A dilema. A contradiction.

I accept I'm not showing that OM does not exist. Us all agreeing that something like genocide is wrong doesn't show me that OM exists though, no matter how many times you say I'm stealing from it.

I agree, but which worldview are you coming from to make such statements?
At 8 years old, did you say, "Man, the holocaust really doesn't mesh with the moral preferences of my culture." No. Why? Because the holocaust was inherently wrong. It wasn't wrong just because your culture said it was wrong. Although your culture may have rightly interpreted OM. It was wrong because it was WRONG, in and of itself. Period.

Which worldview? the world I'd been viewing for eight years.

I think it was wrong, if God thinks otherwise I'll argue with God.

Again I don't have need for inherent value or the weight of God behind me when I state an opinion, it does not matter if the holocaust is wrong beyond time and space what matters is that those within time and space learn a lesson from it. If you wish to attribute that to knowledge of God or to Church of Satan philosophy I couldn't really care. The main thing is that we work to prevent that sort of thing happening again. Both groups would seem to be aiming for that and that keeps me happy.

[B. W.]

B.W…It is my belief that the laws of mathematics are created by humanity, not discovered. As Einstien said "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." . The laws of physics and mathematics only begin existing when we create them. They are tools we use for prediction, sometimes they break. The 2nd laws is held up as some great truth of the universe as it is one of the few things we have created and not managed to break yet.

From your own form of logic then — would not evolution be also a human invention - how can you trust it as fact? Back on topic...

You are contradicting yourself here. We as human beings discover what already exists and form into our own frame of reference so we can understand math / psychics of the observable and unobservable. It does not mean what we discovered never existed.

To follow your line of reasoning to its obvious conclusion then would mean that what holds the universe together never existed until humanity came into being and intelligent enough to decipherer it. That presents a logical absurdity.

So what I hear you saying is that the Star we call the Sun never shined until humanity figured out the splitting of the atom, fusion, fission, etc..? Wow, what gave people the light of day oh say 400 years ago?

Where did the elements come from that made the universe happen? What holds it together? You appear to be stating that these principles never existed until humanity came along to create them????

Answer is No. We discover what already exists and place what we discover into a frame of reference to enlighten our understanding. What we call the laws of physics, you are correct, we did create to explain things; however, contrary to what I am hearing you say, these laws do indeed explain what already exists, how such operate, in whatever environment, etc and etc.

In other words, these laws give definition /clarity to understand what already exists. Therefore, they exist independent of our understanding them. So logically would OM...

Look at it this way, how many suns (stars) exist or planets in our solar system? Do they have a number? Math exists in numbering them and other things as well. We discovered math and created a numbering system because numbers of items already do exist. Humanity uses math as a means to understand and clarify the number existing things that already exist. If there were no human beings - would the number of Stars still exist?

So I gather from what you stated that Einstein's E=mc2 is not reality? The sun is not really shining, gravity does not exist? Light does not travel at what rate of speed in a vacuum or in various atmospheres, light does not bend, so all this is an illusion and there is no measurable way to discern truth?

So that's what you believe as fact - no reality? Are you really certain of this???

If you are not absolutely certain that Morality is subjective then would this not prove that Morality is not based on personal subjectivism due to uncertainty as you cannot trust even your own opinions?

No. It would prove I might not be right which I believe is a valuable thing for all of us to keep in mind.

Then there is a standard of truth that can measure this? Where did it come from?

...Moral Law adjudicates between the different moral opinions people have. Without the standard of Moral Law that comes from a Moral Lawgiver (God), then we are left with just human opinions and uncertainty…

...So by seeing or experiencing the effect — you discover certain things are wrong. However if there are no right and wrongs then nothing you think is wrong is wrong….

...Human beings were hardwired to explore and discover things. In this discovery we find that Moral Law exist because there is a Moral Law Giver who let's us discover. The Standard of Moral Law is God's very own nature of rightness, justice, etc and etc… who being who he is let's us explore and discover that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. In this you deem God unfair being that infinitely just to the unjust and just????

...Yes. I would argue that even with the current ideas of OM we are left with human opinions and uncertainty. One who believes in OM has to pick an OM, interpret it and apply it…

...Do I create concepts of right and wrong and compare them with the concepts of others? I don't think there are rights and wrongs, just as there are not such things as beauty or ugliness, I create them and compare them with others…

...My kitten seems hard wired to explore and discover stuff, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not deeming God unfair, I just don't believe in OM.

Since you do not believe in OM, does not mean that it cannot exist independently...

You just haven't discovered the source…what already existed…
-
-
-

[touchingcloth]

I'd be curious to know anyone's responses to this AiG article that examines a hypothetical situation where you are hiding Jewish people in your house when some Nazi officers arrive and ask you if you know the whereabouts of any Jews, and whether it is better to sin by lying, or to tell the truth

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don't know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

What would you do? Nasty atheist that I am I'd lie, lie and lie some more - right to their stupid Nazi faces

[ageofknowledge]

I'd be curious to know anyone's responses to this AiG article that examines a hypothetical situation where you are hiding Jewish people in your house when some Nazi officers arrive and ask you if you know the whereabouts of any Jews, and whether it is better to sin by lying, or to tell the truth

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don't know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

What would you do? Nasty atheist that I am I'd lie, lie and lie some more - right to their stupid Nazi faces

Brother Andrew and Corrie Ten Boom used to talk about this. Read God's Smuggler and I think you'll find the right answer.

[jlay]

The main thing is that we work to prevent that sort of thing happening again.

Why?

Ethics, like cheese, are not inherently good or bad. I don't think I'm borrowing any more form OM than you are borrowing from the objective cheese scale if you rate some brie. I'm thinking I should have picked spaghetti instead of cheese.

Are you on medication?

I have more headspace for human suffering than I do for ice cream preference because in my experience human suffering is far more important than ice cream preference.

Who are you to say so?

Us all agreeing that something like genocide is wrong doesn't show me that OM exists though, no matter how many times you say I'm stealing from it.

Who said agreement was a determining factor for OM? Obviously there were many who didn't and don't think genocide is wrong. However, from your world view, you can not say that genocide is ihnerently wrong.
You can only say it is 'wrong' in your opinion. Why is your opinion of more moral value than one who says genocide is right?

[B. W.]

touchingcloth,

The biblical words used to define lying mean - one who swindles, a defrauder, an entrapper, a double crosser, and also contained in the meaning of the lie God hates means this as well - a slanderous statement intended to destroy another's character, lay them low, (think how the American News media treats Sara Palin for example of the type of lying the bible speaks about not doing - Proverbs 6:16, 17, 19).

In the case you cite - the Nazi's are the true swindlers, a defrauders, who seek to destroy character and life. Hiding those that the Nazi's seek and denying that you are hiding any would not be a lie. Neither would calling an ugly bride beautiful to her family... That would, instead, be called tactfully shrewd...

So the question arises — what is your motive for posting this scenario? Are you trying to test and bring on a slanderous statement against Christians as being hypocrites? Becareful, take heed to yourself…and what you are inclined to do same as do we all...
-
-
-

[touchingcloth]

Cheers BW. Nope, I was just trying to get some honest feedback from people - my experience is that even most Christians distance themselves from AiG...

[Proinsias]

B.W,

Yes the theory of evolution is a human creation, I believe it's a great way of looking at the world and has brought us great benefit. Maybe Darwin's idea will one day be binned but I would prefer to see them overtaken, as Einstein did with the ideas of Newton.

I'm not sure how many planets there are in the solar system, can I count Pluto? The solar system does not change when we change the number of planets, the systems we have created to explain the solar system change. If the number of planets is objective reality you would expect quite a change in objective reality when we change the number of planets in the solar system, all that tends to happen is some astronomers argue over how best to use the label 'planet'

So I gather from what you stated that Einstein's E=mc2 is not reality?

I quoted Einstein earlier saying "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.". I do not see E=MC2 as reality, it's a way of describing reality. It's a simplification, or perhaps an over complication, of reality which has uses, limitations and raises as many questions as it answers.

Answer is No. We discover what already exists and place what we discover into a frame of reference to enlighten our understanding. What we call the laws of physics, you are correct, we did create to explain things; however, contrary to what I am hearing you say, these laws do indeed explain what already exists, how such operate, in whatever environment, etc and etc.

Well yes we discover what exists and place it into a frame of reference to make it easier to understand. My point is the frames of reference we use are created by us, mathematics, physics, art, language etc. They may do a decent job of explaining things and only need a great overhaul every so often but this does not mean they exist objectively.

It's all well and good to say that gravity is what holds everything together but it's clinging more to labels than to reality. Gravity has changed greatly since it was first described and we're still not really sure where it fits in. To say gravity is reality is one thing, the problem is saying what gravity actually is and how it fits in with reality. I can say that gravity is the bending of space time, but space and time are just as tough, if not tougher, to pin down as gravity is.

Look at it this way, how many suns (stars) exist or planets in our solar system? Do they have a number? Math exists in numbering them and other things as well. We discovered math and created a numbering system because numbers of items already do exist. Humanity uses math as a means to understand and clarify the number existing things that already exist. If there were no human beings - would the number of Stars still exist?

If there were no human beings there would be no one to say what is or is not a star, the question becomes meaningless as there is no one to ask it and no one to answer it. Unfortunately I wouldn't even be around to count David Bowie and Robert De Niro as stars, and they wouldn't be around either.

Which number of stars is it that we are we talking about? As far as I was aware nobody knows how many stars there are.

Since you do not believe in OM, does not mean that it cannot exist independently...

You just haven't discovered the source…what already existed…

I accept that my non-believing does not mean that it cannot exist but that's true of a lot of things and is not much of a reason to go with the idea for me. I wouldn't like to get back into practicing Christianity, or any other religion, just because I couldn't be absolutely certain it wasn't true. To me it's a little like asking Gman to accept evolution if he can't be absolutely certain that it is not true.

[Proinsias]

jlay:

Why should we look to prevent suffering? because I don't like to suffer myself and I can relate to other living things.

Am I on medication? No. The spaghetti reference was for the flying spaghetti monster, possibly a bad idea.

I have more headspace for human suffering than I do for ice cream preference because in my experience human suffering is far more important than ice cream preference.

Who are you to say so?

Who should I be to say so?

Who said agreement was a determining factor for OM? Obviously there were many who didn't and don't think genocide is wrong. However, from your world view, you can not say that genocide is ihnerently wrong.
You can only say it is 'wrong' in your opinion. Why is your opinion of more moral value than one who says genocide is right?

You are correct, I can't say it is inherently wrong. I can only say that I think that it is wrong and hope enough people think the same way. My argument would be the misery and suffering that it causes, not that God may not approve and judge you for it or you'll lose some points on the OM scale.

I don't think telling my daughter that genocide is inherently wrong is really going to be much use to her. Talking to her about what genocide is, instances of it in the past and the misery and suffering that it causes I feel is a much better approach. Enough information for her to, hopefully, form her own opinion that it is wrong. I feel there is ample evidence to convince most reasonable people that genocide is wrong without resorting to the divine. The problem is that some people, regardless if they believe in OM or SM, become unreasonable and end up committing acts of genocide.

I was under the impression the genocide was not really inherently wrong, for instance if God tomorrow commanded a people to commit genocide as another group of people were inherently wicked, genocide might actually be the right thing to do.

[jlay]

Enough information for her to, hopefully, form her own opinion that it is wrong.

Sounds like you haven't even convinced yourself that it is wrong. Based on what you wrote, "because I don't like to suffer myself," your whole view of 'wrong' is only that it might cause you to suffer. In other words, self-centeredness. So that really distorts the whole concept of wrong.

[B. W.]

Proinsias

Response to your last post to me::

How many planets can you count that are known, as well as stars, comets, etc… Do these exist or not?

Our frame of references (science, math, physics, Biology) is used to discover and understand what already is exist. That is my point. Because we do not understand something, or uncovered it yet, does not mean it is not there.

What you seem to be saying to me is that until human beings create a frame of reference a matter just cannot exist… If we were not here, would the universe and laws of gravity still exist?

OM first principle is the morality of discovery. For example, was the recent email documents recently uncovered point to unethical behavior of certain Global Warming enthusiasts in fudging the data? What of Pitdown Man as well?

OM holds one accountable to a higher standard because higher standards do exist. That standard would be God himself. Another principle of OM is choice. Without choice, what is absolutely just: denying discovery or allowing exploration leading to discovery?

What has been granted to you? Do you exist?
-
-
-