So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[carpedm9587]

Carp, God would be a different kind of being, the fact that you do not consider such a being with obvious moral attributes a "moral agent" does nor change the fact that He is a moral being.

Your assertion is duly noted...

It is not a last resort Carp, it is what my worldview and Scripture demand.

Yeah - I know. A pretty handy escape clause - to which there is no possible response. After all, your faith is blinding you to reality, so there is no way I can explain it to you.

Again you keep wanting me to reject my worldview and appeal to what you find reasonable, acceptable. But why is what you find reasonable the standard for what is rational.

For me, a worldview is based on evidence and experience. When you can provide evidence that suggests your worldview is the correct one and mine is false, my worldview will change. Until then, my worldview will be based on my experiences and my reasoning upon them. That's pretty much how it works.

And the chain is still circular. Your circle is no more rational or irrational than my circle. My circle may be tighter, but so what?

A tighter circle makes you spin harder...

Well I was using relative in the sense that we have been using it for months now, and in that case God's law is not relative, let me quote:

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

And there is a difference between relative and subjective, that is why we have two different words. God's moral law is subjective to him, but not relative since it is universal.

Seer, you are talking to someone who completely rejects the idea that the notion of an "absolute moral framework" is even possible. Even if you could show this god exists, the moral framework of this god would be universal in exactly the same way my moral framework is universal: god measures all actions against his own moral framework; Michel measures all actions against his moral framework; Seer measures all actions against his moral framework.

Where do these moral frameworks come from? Our experiences. Those experiences include the culture in which we grew up, so our frameworks will be culturally influenced. God's framework will be based on god's experiences. This is where the whole notion of god becomes tangled and convoluted. God is apparently eternal, so god has infinite experiences. God is apparently spiritual so he has only spiritual experiences - but then god (the Christian one anyway) apparently became human so he also has human experiences and god is apparently all knowing so he apparently knows all experiences so perhaps one could say his moral framework is pan-cultural. It all gets a little preposterous, frankly. And then you toss in that god lacks the ability to act against his own moral framework, which removes the idea of moral agency.

I don't think I could sustain your beliefs. I don't mean that pejoratively. The fact is I once shared your beliefs, and said (and believed) pretty much all of the things you have said here. Eventually, I found them wanting because I realized they simply could not withstand scrutiny.

Carp, when I say binding I mean accountable. You could say that the laws of the land are not binding on you, but they are in the sense that you are accountable to them, legally. As with the law of God.

Seer, I am accountable to the laws of the U.S. I don't find all of them moral. I am accountable whatever norms are prevalent in society, and have to suffer the consequences if I do not adhere to them. Your "accountable" is nothing more than the reality that a weaker being will be subject to the whims of a stronger being. It's not "binding." It's "might makes enforcement." There is no way in which god's moral code is "binding" in any way that is different from how any other person or groups code is binding - except he is purported to be the most powerful being. If I am jailed by my country because I refuse to pay taxes that are used for military purposes, jailing me will not change my moral code - it will simply punish me for not doing what the group wants. If I am condemned to hell because I refuse to see homosexuality as sinful, it will not change my moral code - it will simply punish me for not bowing to the divine will.

There's no difference.

Prefect!

I was never a prefect. I was an acolyte many times, and I was a Jesuit novice for 1.5 years, and I almost took first vows... but never a prefect.

[Tassman]

Jim, you are still refusing to answer the question. And as I have made clear in the past, any number of times, if all men sincerely followed the golden rule we would have a peaceful world. The problem comes in because men often don't. And their moral opinion is no less correct or valid than ours. The best interest of the whole, is just that, an opinion. It is no more right than the best interest of the majority or a powerful minority at the expense of the rest of the population.

The Golden Rule IS

[JimL]

Jim, you are still refusing to answer the question. And as I have made clear in the past, any number of times, if all men sincerely followed the golden rule we would have a peaceful world.

Then thats's all you need to know in order to understand that morals need not be objective absolutes come down from above to have meaning and to serve a purpose as was your original argument.

The problem comes in because men often don't. And their moral opinion is no less correct or valid than ours.

That statement contradicts your above statement. Either following the golden rule is in the best interests of human society or it is not seer. You can't have it both ways.

The best interest of the whole, is just that, an opinion. It is no more right than the best interest of the majority or a powerful minority at the expense of the rest of the population.

Again, it's either an opinion or it is a experiental, a learned fact. In the above you say that you understand that all men following the golden rule would make for a more peaceful world. If you are correct in that, then the very notion need have nothing to do with god, it need only have to do with sound reason.

[seer]

Then thats's all you need to know in order to understand that morals need not be objective absolutes come down from above to have meaning and to serve a purpose as was your original argument.

But that was not my claim Jim. My point is that there isn't any right or wrong apart from personal or collective opinion, that no moral opinion is more valid of correct that its opposite.

That statement contradicts your above statement. Either following the golden rule is in the best interests of human society or it is not seer. You can't have it both ways.

Jim, are you having a hard time following?

Again, it's either an opinion or it is a experiental, a learned fact. In the above you say that you understand that all men following the golden rule would make for a more peaceful world. If you are correct in that, then the very notion need have nothing to do with god, it need only have to do with sound reason.

You are missing the point, again. Why is the best interest of the whole a moral good? As opposed of the best interest of a powerful minority at the expense of the majority. What, actually, we have seen through history.

[seer]

I don't think I could sustain your beliefs. I don't mean that pejoratively. The fact is I once shared your beliefs, and said (and believed) pretty much all of the things you have said here. Eventually, I found them wanting because I realized they simply could not withstand scrutiny.

Right, and I was an agnostic until I was 37, but have come to see that position as morally and rationally vacuous.

Seer, I am accountable to the laws of the U.S. I don't find all of them moral. I am accountable whatever norms are prevalent in society, and have to suffer the consequences if I do not adhere to them. Your "accountable" is nothing more than the reality that a weaker being will be subject to the whims of a stronger being. It's not "binding." It's "might makes enforcement." There is no way in which god's moral code is "binding" in any way that is different from how any other person or groups code is binding - except he is purported to be the most powerful being. If I am jailed by my country because I refuse to pay taxes that are used for military purposes, jailing me will not change my moral code - it will simply punish me for not doing what the group wants. If I am condemned to hell because I refuse to see homosexuality as sinful, it will not change my moral code - it will simply punish me for not bowing to the divine will.

There's no difference.

Right, you can resist God's will and cling to your moral code, which is based in ignorance, and God will one day remove you from civil society.

[carpedm9587]

Right, and I was an agnostic until I was 37, but have come to see that position as morally and rationally vacuous.

Then you have come to an incorrect conclusion through faulty reasoning. I'm a reasonably rational man, with a background in philosophy and a masters in communication systems. I can think my way out of a paper bag. I'm not having a problem with the moral richness or rational basis of my beliefs.

Right, you can resist God's will and cling to your moral code, which is based in ignorance, and God will one day remove you from civil society.

If that god exists at all - which you have not shown. And if it does, power does not make a thing right. It just enables one being to enforce their will on another.

[seer]

Then you have come to an incorrect conclusion through faulty reasoning. I'm a reasonably rational man, with a background in philosophy and a masters in communication systems. I can think my way out of a paper bag. I'm not having a problem with the moral richness or rational basis of my beliefs.

No, I'm not saying that you are irrational. But that I came to the position that a rational, conscious, moral, intending Creator was a much more credible explanation for our rationality, consciousness, and moral instincts than the non-rational, non-conscious, amoral, non-intending forces of nature.

If that god exists at all - which you have not shown. And if it does, power does not make a thing right. It just enables one being to enforce their will on another.

Then what does make a thing right Carp? Be specific please.

[JimL]

But that was not my claim Jim. My point is that there isn't any right or wrong apart from personal or collective opinion, that no moral opinion is more valid of correct that its opposite.



Jim, are you having a hard time following?



You are missing the point, again. Why is the best interest of the whole a moral good? As opposed of the best interest of a powerful minority at the expense of the majority. What, actually, we have seen through history.

I don't think I'm missing the point seer, I think you are. We keep telling you that there is no objective absolute right or wrong, that right and wrong are human terms defining behaviors having to do with the best interests of human relationships and human society. That's ultimately what makes a behavior either moral or immoral, not that they are objective rules come down from god. But you have it in your mind that morals exist as objective laws come from god, so you keep asking the same question "why is this or that moral" which is to say "if it isn't objective, then what makes it moral." Well, why is: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" considered a moral behavior? It's not because it's an objective law, doesn't have to be, it's because it works to serve the best interests of human society whether it be 2 people or thousands of people.

[Tassman]

But that was not my claim Jim. My point is that there isn't any right or wrong apart from personal or collective opinion,

that no moral opinion is more valid of correct that its opposite.

Compared to what, fictional God made laws...what evidence do you have for this claim?

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm not saying that you are irrational. But that I came to the position that a rational, conscious, moral, intending Creator was a much more credible explanation for our rationality, consciousness, and moral instincts than the non-rational, non-conscious, amoral, non-intending forces of nature.

So you're not saying that I'm irrational...but you're saying that I'm irrational?

Then what does make a thing right Carp? Be specific please.

What makes a thing (i.e.,, an action) right, to any person, is the alignment between that action and the values of that person holds. I've said this several times now.

[Tassman]

No, I'm not saying that you are irrational. But that I came to the position that a rational, conscious, moral, intending Creator was a much more credible explanation for our rationality, consciousness, and moral instincts than the non-rational, non-conscious, amoral, non-intending forces of nature.

There's nothing rational about positing the existence of a "rational, conscious, moral, intending Creator", when there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that such an entity exists.

Then what does make a thing right Carp? Be specific please.

We are naturally evolved biological organisms existing in an amoral material environment; if there is any goodness or caring to be done we are the only ones to do it. For any social species such as us, the survival benefits of being part of a cooperative group far outweigh the benefits of individualism

[seer]

So you're not saying that I'm irrational...but you're saying that I'm irrational?

No, how did you get that out of what I said?

What makes a thing (i.e.,, an action) right, to any person, is the alignment between that action and the values of that person holds. I've said this several times now.

And if the powerful define right and impose it on others they are right for doing so.

[seer]

...that right and wrong are human terms defining behaviors having to do with the best interests of human relationships and human society. That's ultimately what makes a behavior either moral or immoral...

No Jim, this is what I am saying, the above is merely your opinion. If you start claiming the best interest of the whole, as opposed to the best interest of the majority or minority at the expense of rest of the population then you are in the realm of personal opinion.

[JimL]

No Jim, this is what I am saying, the above is merely your opinion. If you start claiming the best interest of the whole, as opposed to the best interest of the majority or minority at the expense of rest of the population then you are in the realm of personal opinion.

Like I said seer, no one is going to change your mind, you believe that morals either must be objective realities, laws of god, or they are meaningless and purposeless. It's for that very purpose, the narcisistic nature of human beings, that we impress morality and the fear of god on children. But then, at some point, it is up to the individual to either grow up, or remain in the pschological prison world of his own mind. "Blessed are the meek, they remain in that world, probably happily so, but blessed too are the righteous, they escape, the scales fall from their eyes, they are born again so to speak, and their moral behavior, good or bad, is no longer a result of a fear of god, but the result of their own mature responsible nature. You are still locked up in the prison of your own mind where, according to your own previous testimony, and for the good of society, it seems you belong for the time being.

[carpedm9587]

No, how did you get that out of what I said?

You're right. You're not saying I'm irrational - just less rational than you.

And if the powerful define right and impose it on others they are right for doing so.

And that is where we disagree. I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" philosophy. That makes whoever is most powerful the definer of right. I do not see "right" being a function of "power." I don't know too many people who do.