Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    I think you are misunderstanding whatever dictionary you are using. The sense in which something 'objective' is "person independent" is that it is independent of all conscious beings (God included). Something being independent of humans but dependent on God is not a distinction that philosophers make and is not what the word 'objective' means. If something depends on God then it is 'subjective' and you are using the word correctly when you say above: "God's law is subjective to Him".

    So what you're trying to say is that you think a moral code ought to be external to humanity. I personally don't think that's a good requirement for a moral code, and don't see any good reason to place such a restriction on a moral code. I think morality arises from the nature of humanity as conscious beings - so I think morality is intrinsic to humanity (and any spiritual beings, God included) as a result of the fact that we are sentient beings. Demanding that a moral code be external to humanity rather than intrinsic to humanity strikes me as being like demanding that I solve a math problem without using math.
    If this is the case then moral ideals are not objective, but even if we differ on definition it still comes down to this: When there are competing moral views there can not exist an independent standard to judge between these contradictory opinions - therefore no opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite.

    Here is my attempt at explaining objective morality as simply as I possibly can:
    Whenever there are conscious beings in the universe - beings capable of experiencing reality - it makes sense to ask whether those experiences are positive or negative in nature. Whenever two conscious and intelligent beings interact, they do so with values and intentions toward each other. It makes sense to ask whether their intentions were to increase the positive experiences of the other, or to increase the negative experiences of the other, or neither. On that concept we pin the label of "morality". And that's it. The only arbitrary thing there was the choice to use the word "morality" to refer to that concept and not to some other concept. But this is always going to be a problem, because the definition of all words is intersubjective (they are defined by society) and you can never escape the subjectivity of the definition itself. But the concept the word refers to - the positive or negative intentions of conscious beings toward each other - clearly objectively exists.
    Ok, I generally agree with this. But that, in my mind, has never been the question, see above.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Moving from where we were. Do you seriously contend we were better off in say the virtual theocracy of the Middle Ages with its violence, disease, superstition and squalidness?
      But there is no morally better in evolution, only what works.


      Yes it's possible we'll revert to the tribal barbarism of religious intolerance as we're seeing right now in many parts of the world.
      That is just silly there is no reverting or moving forward morally in your world. There is only what works or doesn't work.



      No, the 1% are doing what they choose to do, determinism is not fatalism.

      Of course not, "nature" is all there is, do you have substantive evidence of anything that isn't “nature”?
      No, the 1% are doing what they are predetermined to do. What nature created them to do. And I'm glad you have no problem with their natural behavior.


      The survival instinct is not useless, all living creatures instinctively resist death…ever tried to swat a housefly?
      And how useful was that survival instinct after I swatted the fly?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        When there are competing moral views there can not exist an independent standard to judge between these contradictory opinions - therefore no opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite.
        In one sense I agree with you. If you say "I'm going to use the word 'morality' to refer to an action's conformity with the commands of the Christian God", and I say "I'm going to use the word 'morality' to refer to positive or negative interactions between conscious beings", then neither of us is more correct or more valid.

        In another sense, since I doubt the Christian God actually exists, whereas you don't doubt that conscious beings exists, my view would seem to be slightly more valid since we can both agree that what I refer to definitely exists but we can't say the same about your reference.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • I think the whole attempt at trying to "get around" the Euthyphro Dilemma slightly misunderstands it.

          The point of the Euthyphro dilemma is to distinguish two types of situations. One is where an objective morality exists separately to God. A possible case would be that it existed as some sort of platonic form. God then, using his omniscience, knows about that objective morality, and therefore knows what is right and wrong. Using that knowledge he then gives commands to humans. So from a human perspective, God is a useful source of knowledge about morality, but isn't himself the standard of it. If the theist endorses this view, then it's a direct acceptance of the existence of objective morality that is external to God. Plenty of Christians do endorse this view, but probably not a majority.

          The other type of situation is where God himself sets the standard of morality. Morality is not about God knowing about something external to him, but instead absolutely depends on God for its existence. And this is what we typically term the "divine command" theory of morality. And this is the view that probably the majority of Christians would endorsed.

          Then, to the supporters of the divine command theory, a common follow-up question is posed: Aren't the commands of God then arbitrary? Couldn't God say "do murder" rather than "don't murder"? And that question divides Christians two ways as well. Some Christians would say "yes, God could say that, and whatever God says at any given time is Right." (And that seems a reasonably consistent view, as far as it goes)

          But other Christians would say, "no, God's nature is loving, so he would never say that. His commands flow from his nature." It essentially defends against the accusation that "a divine moral code is arbitrary" by denying that God has real freedom to make arbitrary choices, and is instead constrained by his nature into only one possible choice. God was always going to say "don't murder" because it's his nature to say that. But this simply pushes the causal question back a step: Why exactly does God have a "don't murder" nature rather than a "do murder" nature? An explanation could be that God just has a randomly generated nature, and this happens to be one of them. However most philosophically oriented Christians much prefer the idea that God is a 'necessary' being. So they would like to say that the definition of goodness is a part of God's nature and therefore a quality that he necessarily has. But if the definition of goodness has necessary existence, then there's not a great deal of practical difference between the scenario where it exists necessarily as a platonic form and where it exists necessarily as a part of God's essence (although in this second scenario, God's freedom is significantly curtailed). So a philosophically minded person would then say that moral truths are necessary truths, and thus could be determined by sheer logic, without reference to God.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            In one sense I agree with you. If you say "I'm going to use the word 'morality' to refer to an action's conformity with the commands of the Christian God", and I say "I'm going to use the word 'morality' to refer to positive or negative interactions between conscious beings", then neither of us is more correct or more valid.

            In another sense, since I doubt the Christian God actually exists, whereas you don't doubt that conscious beings exists, my view would seem to be slightly more valid since we can both agree that what I refer to definitely exists but we can't say the same about your reference.
            Except Star, there are real consequences flowing from our different views. As I laid out in a previous point. And goes to the very nature of humanity, justice and goodness.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Except Star, there are real consequences flowing from our different views. As I laid out in a previous point. And goes to the very nature of humanity, justice and goodness.
              Sure. People following biblical morality have often endorsed slavery, segregation, torture, genocide, racism, homophobia, and misogyny, believing those things to be endorsed by God in the bible and therefore moral. Whereas people following my morality of desiring human well-being have opposed all of those, believing those things to be harmful to human well-being and therefore immoral.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                ... homophobia
                How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such thing as "homophobia"?

                http://www.dsm5.org/Search/default.aspx?k=homophobia

                No results matching your search were found.

                1.Check your spelling. Are the words in your query spelled correctly?
                2.Try using synonyms. Maybe what you're looking for uses slightly different words.
                3.Make your search more general. Try more general terms in place of specific ones.
                4.Try your search in a different scope. Different scopes can have different results.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  However most philosophically oriented Christians much prefer the idea that God is a 'necessary' being. So they would like to say that the definition of goodness is a part of God's nature and therefore a quality that he necessarily has. But if the definition of goodness has necessary existence, then there's not a great deal of practical difference between the scenario where it exists necessarily as a platonic form and where it exists necessarily as a part of God's essence (although in this second scenario, God's freedom is significantly curtailed). So a philosophically minded person would then say that moral truths are necessary truths, and thus could be determined by sheer logic, without reference to God.
                  Nope, first you dismissed platonic forms as silly. And no moral truths can not or do not exist apart from minds, and God is Mind. So moral truths are only necessary because they are grounded in a necessary Being.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Sure. People following biblical morality have often endorsed slavery, segregation, torture, genocide, racism, homophobia, and misogyny, believing those things to be endorsed by God in the bible and therefore moral. Whereas people following my morality of desiring human well-being have opposed all of those, believing those things to be harmful to human well-being and therefore immoral.
                    Yes Star, men are wicked - what is your point? In your world, as we have seen, there is no certain justice, a Mother Teresa and a Stalin come to the same end. Human brings are the accidental by product of evolutionary processes - no inherent worth. And moral ideals are relative and subjective. Also, you don't believe in the well-being of all humans - certainly not unborn children. It is you progressives that have ushered in the slaughter of millions and millions and millions of babies. So spare me your moral outrage, you are just as wicked as any slave holder.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Wouldn't your reasoning here be consistent with an objective morality that required maximizing suffering?
                      Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. Since life that is able to suffer introduces the moral element into the picture. Maximum suffering would be the maximum evil, and yes, that would be objective, but no requirement.

                      I think you mis-state the "standard response". The response is not just that God is loving, but that the objective standard that "loving is good" is also a property of God. The fact that God is loving is not the same thing as the standard that loving is good. But both are eternal properties of God.
                      If it's an objective standard, than it is a standard that exists independently of god. So answer this: Why is loving good?

                      It's the same thing with the laws of logic. They are neither arbitrary commands of God, nor a standard existing eternally apart from God, but are an eternal property of God. The fact that God is non-contradictory is different than the property of God that requires that "no contradiction is possible".
                      The laws of logic do not depend on a being existing for them to be true, they are simply the result of certain things not being possible and relationship between the possible and impossible.

                      Defining god as the source of “logic” is mere theological wordplay. It doesn't demonstrate that “logic” cannot exist independently of god. Even if "logic" is an essential property of god, it is a property that can apply to other things independently of god’s existence. Just think of how being hot is an essential property of fire – fire must be hot, it cannot be cold. But “hot” can apply to many other things independently of fire. For example, microwaves cause things to be hot and so does friction.

                      For the theist to hypothesize the existence of other living beings apart from the existence of God, the theist would have to hypothesize negating the fundamental attributes of God, leading the theist to a contradiction. Or put into the terms of your first reasoning in your post: For the theist, the existence of all other living things depends on God. Without God, they do not exist, and without any living beings (according to your own premise) morality doesn't exist.
                      Not so. Some theists who are platonists think numbers and forms exist necessarily and would also exist independently of god. Many also think god necessarily exists, but isn't the only thing that necessarily exists.

                      But aside from that, the idea is to image an atheistic world where all things being equal. There would be no difference that "loving is good" as nothing good relies on the existence of a deity. Some atheists like myself don't think the classical god is logically coherent, and so we have to do the same thing when we entertain hypotheticals about god existing.

                      Not a big deal. It's no problem for Christians to admit that every human being has their own subjective values/priorities, which may correspond or deviate from the ultimate, objective standard, more or less, and that every person may be judged, justly, by God accordingly.
                      It is a problem for the Christian and for the divine command theorist. The problem is not that different people have different ideas on morality, the problem is that on DCT there is no way to know what the "ultimate, objective standard" is, and so epistemically speaking, claiming that objective moral duties are revealed by god while there is no way to discern or determine it shows the whole theory to be problematic. DCT will always result in relative morality in practice.

                      Blog: Atheism and the City

                      If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                      Comment


                      • The point is that Yahweh - your god, endorses slavery. It's not that men are wicked. It's that the moral values and duties espoused by your god and his so-called prophets are wicked. On your worldview all Stalin had to do was convert to Christianity before he died and he goes to heaven, but the Hindu who spends 80 years helping the poor goes to hell. You call this justice? So spare me your moral outrage, you are just as wicked as any slave holder.
                        Blog: Atheism and the City

                        If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                          The point is that Yahweh - your god, endorses slavery. It's not that men are wicked. It's that the moral values and duties espoused by your god and his so-called prophets are wicked. On your worldview all Stalin had to do was convert to Christianity before he died and he goes to heaven, but the Hindu who spends 80 years helping the poor goes to hell. You call this justice? So spare me your moral outrage, you are just as wicked as any slave holder.
                          Yes, that is justice. I define justice as punishment or the complete reformation of the bad man (Christianity offers both). And again, yes, if a man rejects life he will die. God is the only source for everlasting life and if you are not connected to that life you will wither and die. I live in a just and moral universe, you live in an unjust and amoral universe. It is as simple as that. And let me get this right - slavery is bad but killing millions of unborn babies in the womb is perfectly justified?
                          Last edited by seer; 06-30-2015, 01:14 PM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                            The point is that Yahweh - your god, endorses slavery. It's not that men are wicked. It's that the moral values and duties espoused by your god and his so-called prophets are wicked. On your worldview all Stalin had to do was convert to Christianity before he died and he goes to heaven, but the Hindu who spends 80 years helping the poor goes to hell. You call this justice? So spare me your moral outrage, you are just as wicked as any slave holder.
                            Are you one of them thar "New Atheists"?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Are you one of them thar "New Atheists"?
                              Nothing new about them...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Are you one of them thar "New Atheists"?
                                He's a fundy atheist!
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                94 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                282 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                356 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X