Morals without god/the bible

[touchingcloth]

Byblos - is your point that genocide is immoral judging by some gold-standard of morality? If so, what is that gold-standard? On what grounds would you condemn or excuse the Nazis?

[Byblos]

Byblos - is your point that genocide is immoral judging by some gold-standard of morality? If so, what is that gold-standard? On what grounds would you condemn or excuse the Nazis?

Are you really serious asking me that question? What have we been discussing for pages on end? Objective morality. Like anything else objective, it must be neutral.

[touchingcloth]

Byblos - is your point that genocide is immoral judging by some gold-standard of morality? If so, what is that gold-standard? On what grounds would you condemn or excuse the Nazis?

Are you really serious asking me that question? What have we been discussing for pages on end? Objective morality. Like anything else objective, it must be neutral.

So genocide is just plain and objectively wrong?

[Byblos]

So genocide is just plain and objectively wrong?

When measured against an objective standard, yes. When measured against a no standard of inherent right and wrong then no.

[touchingcloth]

So genocide is just plain and objectively wrong?

When measured against an objective standard, yes. When measured against a no standard of inherent right and wrong then no.

...depending on what the objective standard is, of course.

[Byblos]

So genocide is just plain and objectively wrong?

When measured against an objective standard, yes. When measured against a no standard of inherent right and wrong then no.

...depending on what the objective standard is, of course.

Yes, of course. But that is an epistemological dependency, having already established the ontology of such.

[B. W.]

…B.W -- We can agree that there is existence. You are free to divide that up, classify it and count it however you wish.

The laws of gravity are human creations, hence they change with time. We now know that Newton's laws of gravity can be broken for instance. The number of planets in existence is a human creation, hence it changes as we change what we think constitutes a planet. If we promote something to planet status or demote something from planet status that something does not change, all that changes is the numbers in your list of objective facts about planets. It's kind of tough to have an objective number of planets or an objective thing called gravity when what it means to be a planet or what gravity means is changing.

It's not a matter of things not existing without humans. It's a matter of realizing you are not discovering objective truth by defining what it means to be a planet and then counting things which fall into that definition. You are simplifying things for convenience.

So what you are really saying then is from the evidence of what already exist is discovered in various ways. To write what you just wrote proves this…

You writing this is also proof that you do exist as well as a thinking and reasoning person who can and does discovers.

If you are absolutely certain there are no absolutes — how can you be absolutely certain of this?

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?

We may have a certain amount of freedom; at least it appears that we could have chosen to do something else if we wanted.

The existence of objective morality and God utilizing it to hold us accountable is more of a wait and see than a definite for me. Again saying that objective standards do exist and that they come from God doesn't do much to convince me.

You do not have to wait and see…

What has been granted to you? Do you exist?

Having dabbled a little in Daoism and Zen I would have to say I can't really answer either with certainty. It would appear that I, what ever that means, exists. What I happen to have and whether that has been granted to me is another tricky question.

As with gravity and planets defining what the self is far more interesting to me than arguing if they objectively exist or not.

So you can discover that self does indeed exist. Would that be just or unjust?
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

Gman:

I'm not saying that people are great and never sin. I do agree we should have an accurate picture of ourselves. I don't think that having sinned or having witnessed great evil in my heart makes my heart desperately wicked and above all things deceitful any more than me doing something nice or witnessing great love in my heart makes my heart desperately good and truthful above all things.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We are not desperately wicked or desperately good, we're a bit of both.

It still appears a contradiction to me that one should not trust one's own heart as one cannot fully understand one's own heart but one should trust in God when one cannot fully understand God. It seems to be saying that one should not trust oneself as one cannot understand oneself so therefore one should trust something else that one cannot fully understand instead preferably with all of that deceitful wicked heart that can't be trusted anyway.

Byblos:

merely exercising their evolutionary-given right to free speech expressed in the form of genocide.

What evolutionary-given right to free speech? Again no such thing exists, it's no more real than objective morality to me, in fact it seems far more absurd. Evolution is a theory of common decent, it doesn't hand out rights or grant freedom of speech.

I may not not be able to judge the Nazi's as inherently or absolutely wrong, doesn't mean I can't judge them as wrong or that I need to defend them. In the absence of inherent qualities or absolutes why am I duty bound to do anything?

jlay:

Gman brings up a very good point. Pro, then jumps right in to the most common fallacy among non-beleivers. That they are good. In fact the bible predicts this exact reponse in the proverbs.

I didn't say tat I, or humanity, was good. I said that viewing I, or humanity, as desperately wicked seems little more than a pessimistic approach.

A Gman said "be honest, are we really that good" I'm saying be honest are we really that bad. A balanced approach to a grey area.

Where have I expressed a want for 'real' meaning attached to my position that suffering is wrong? I suspect you are projecting this upon me. I said I didn't like it and would like it to be minimized for all living things.

I'm not trying to establish an inherent moral value or quality in my position. I'm making it up as I go along. I don't want my position to have 'real' meaning, I've never said that it does have 'real' meaning beyond that which I and others attach to it.

[Byblos]

Byblos:

merely exercising their evolutionary-given right to free speech expressed in the form of genocide.

What evolutionary-given right to free speech? Again no such thing exists, it's no more real than objective morality to me, in fact it seems far more absurd. Evolution is a theory of common decent, it doesn't hand out rights or grant freedom of speech.

That's exactly what I mean, Proinsias. On what basis can you call genocide wrong even by your standard? You can't. You can disagree with it but you can't judge it as evil or even wrong. The same way you cannot judge a pedophile from having desires on your daughter or my son. You can express intense dislike to the idea but you cannot condemn it. It's all a matter of preference (I was going to say "you're right" but you and I know there's no such thing, right? oops there I go again).

I may not not be able to judge the Nazi's as inherently or absolutely wrong, doesn't mean I can't judge them as wrong or that I need to defend them. In the absence of inherent qualities or absolutes why am I duty bound to do anything?

I think you also answered my question as well as can be expected. Thank you. (although I do believe your double negative above was a Freudian slip ).

[Proinsias]

You got me on the Freudian slip, doh

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on the rest. I can label things right and wrong as easily as you can. I can condemn and judge things as easily as you can. As you say it's all preference. If you prefer to call something wrong based on a belief in God and objective morality that's your call. If I choose to call something wrong based on how I feel at that particular point in time then that's my call.

I'm not claiming my judgment or condemnation has an inherent value but that doesn't stop me doing it. It just means it's not got inherent value, which is fine by me.

You say I can't judge, label things evil or wrong, or condemn things. I can do this. It just seems like it won't mean much to you, which again is fine by me.

[Proinsias]

B.W

You writing this is also proof that you do exist as well as a thinking and reasoning person who can and does discovers.

Not so much proof from where I'm standing but an extension of the rather nice "I think therefore I am". Philosophical musings, not proof.

If you've got a spare 10mins Alan Watts can probably give a far clearer idea of roughly where I'm coming from than I can manage here

If you are absolutely certain there are no absolutes — how can you be absolutely certain of this?

I'm not absolutely certain of this, I didn't say I was. I've admitted many times I could be wrong. As I've said the possibility that I may be wrong is not really much incentive for me to switch to the viewpoint of another which may also be wrong.

So you can discover that self does indeed exist. Would that be just or unjust?

I said it appears that the self exists, not that it does indeed exist. I have no idea if an attempt to discover or discredit the self is just or unjust.

[Byblos]

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on the rest. I can label things right and wrong as easily as you can. I can condemn and judge things as easily as you can. As you say it's all preference. If you prefer to call something wrong based on a belief in God and objective morality that's your call. If I choose to call something wrong based on how I feel at that particular point in time then that's my call.

I'm not claiming my judgment or condemnation has an inherent value but that doesn't stop me doing it. It just means it's not got inherent value, which is fine by me.

You say I can't judge, label things evil or wrong, or condemn things. I can do this. It just seems like it won't mean much to you, which again is fine by me.

It's not to only me that it won't mean much; it won't mean much because what is inherent in such a position is meaninglessness instead of purpose. If you can live with that, and evidently you can, then kudos to you. You seem to have arrived at the highest level (or lowest, depending on one's perspective) of atheistic enlightenment, i.e. nothing matters. That is the most logical conclusion of atheism. I said this before, at least yours is an internally consistent position. It doesn't borrow from another system of morality, live by its premises, and yet deny its source.

Thanks for the discourse.

[Gman]

Gman:

I'm not saying that people are great and never sin. I do agree we should have an accurate picture of ourselves. I don't think that having sinned or having witnessed great evil in my heart makes my heart desperately wicked and above all things deceitful any more than me doing something nice or witnessing great love in my heart makes my heart desperately good and truthful above all things.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We are not desperately wicked or desperately good, we're a bit of both.

Like I was saying earlier, our confession is what separates the men from the boys. Compared to God, we are wicked. Until you understand that in your heart, I believe we will never be free. God can't fix something that isn't broken... And if we think we got it all together, be careful.

While it's true we may have a little of both good and bad, God is the ultimate judge of that. We don't always know. There is no safeguard here. We can kid ourselves and hang plaques on the wall in honor of ourselves but it is a false hope. The main point here is that we are not perfect and it appears that you agree with that too. If so, this is even more the reason not to rely on our own morals.

It still appears a contradiction to me that one should not trust one's own heart as one cannot fully understand one's own heart but one should trust in God when one cannot fully understand God. It seems to be saying that one should not trust oneself as one cannot understand oneself so therefore one should trust something else that one cannot fully understand instead preferably with all of that deceitful wicked heart that can't be trusted anyway.

The point here is one shouldn't fully trust in oneself. We need to trust in ourselves to some degree but not fully. That would be foolish. Besides we don't know everything about our own hearts. Do you claim to?

But we can know what God is.. We can trust in God. Like I was saying before if you know what love is, then you may have a taste of what God is, 1 John 4:8. Believe me, it's really not too complicated.

[Gman]

Gman brings up a very good point. Pro, then jumps right in to the most common fallacy among non-beleivers. That they are good. In fact the bible predicts this exact reponse in the proverbs.

"All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD. (Pro. 16:2)
"Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?" (Pro, 20:6)

Exactly... Great point!

Have mercy on me. I can think back to my childhood and some of the depraved things I thought and did. Even in my adult life, I have experienced envy, greed, hate, malice. Now I can put on a pretty good front. Most people would label me a 'nice' guy. But if I really examine my whole life for every detail, and every word, thought and deed, YIKES!! The atheist is thankful for Hitler, because they think that goodness is graded on a curve.

You are right gman. No one wants to man up and examine life this way. And yet here is this great contradiction. The atheist wants to be good. They want to be thought of as moral. And they can be, as we have established. But you can't attach any value to it, unless you pick pocket from objective morality. The non-beleiver always ends up backed into a corner, where they will finally say, it has no meaning. They will disobey their own conscience to cling to their worldview. They want meaning. They just don't want to deal with the implications. The bible predicts as well.

Thanks jlay... It's another reason why I gave up on all the other religions like the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Mormon's and the like. They are absolutely fearful to confess they have sin in their life. I don't know if it is fear or pride or what, but as soon as you hit them up with the sin thing they run away like little babies. Like it is so damaging to confess that they did something wrong in their life.. Talk about a fragile plastic faith, I will have nothing to do with that. I want the truth..

[Gman]

My challenge to you is this... Do some real soul searching. Take a look into your hearts.. Understand the darkness of your own souls. I've done it and found complete evil. And not just a little evil, years of complete home grown darkness. Very sad... Let's not kid ourselves. Until you understand this, you will never understand the grace of God. Thanks to God He is so forgiving because I would have died many years ago.

Try it sometime. Look into your heart. Understand wisdom... Don't bury your head in the sand, fly with the eagles...

It's beautiful to know the truth!!! Oh I pray that someone will understand this. It will literally set you free..