So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[firstfloor]

You think 'atheist' is a badge of shame? Fascinating.

[Tassman]

No Tass, we select what God has selected - the moral law brought over from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

You "select" whatever Old Testament laws suit the moral prejudices of the day. This is moral relativism writ large.

I recently listed a number of them for you on the Philosophy board, did you forget already?

Yes I "forgot already" list them again. Where is the list of these New Covenant Laws that Christ instituted, that do away with the Laws of the Old Covenant?

And BTW - no interpretation is needed, they are quite clear...

Then why aren't you killing adulterers as God commanded"... or the followers of other religions or or witches etc. etc.

[seer]

You "select" whatever Old Testament laws suit the moral prejudices of the day. This is moral relativism writ large. [/qupote]


Yes I "forgot already" list them again. Where is the list of these New Covenant Laws that Christ instituted, that do away with the Laws of the Old Covenant?



Then why aren't you killing adulterers as God commanded"... or the followers of other religions or or witches etc. etc.

Tass we have been over this ad nauseam and now you are just being an ass...

[One Bad Pig]

I assure you, you can rest easy on that account here.

[crepuscule]

Yes, if they really were witches who sold their soul to the devil and intended to do harm.

Well I have never heard a really coherent argument for objective morality from an atheist. Most around here are relativists - as far as I can tell.

That doesn't alter the fact that there are atheists who genuinely believe there are objective moral rules.

Why? Why is that a poor reason? Ease of living or giving into one's desire can be quite powerful reasons.

Yes, but not for wanting something to be true turning into believing it is true. You would know you had altered a moral rule merely out of convenience, and not because you believed the rule to be wrong. It wouldn't be a moral rule anymore; not a rule of how you should behave.

I never said that all moral beliefs are easy to change, but some certainly are, even personally important ones.

Well yes I suppose some are, but not because I want them to be different. Your moral code is what you believe it to be, not what you want it to be.

And what are the rules of an objectivist?

[sigh] The collection of moral rules that a person believes to exist independently from opinion. [/sigh]

Where do I find these?

[Tassman]

Tass we have been over this ad nauseam and now you are just being an ass...

No, you have NEVER provided a comprehensive list of, "god-given" moral laws despite your repeated instance that they exist and supposedly form the basis of an objective standard of 'right and wrong'...as opposed to alleged moral relativism as per the thread title.

At best we get from you vague references to "it's all in the New Testament" and the Golden Rule...the latter not even being unique to the New Testament. Furthermore Christians never seem to agree on what constitutes God's moral law. It has always been internally inconsistent, vague and interpretable and has been used as justification for all sorts of appalling behaviour such as slavery, apartheid, witch murders and discrimination against despised minorities.

[seer]

No, you have NEVER provided a comprehensive list of, "god-given" moral laws despite your repeated instance that they exist and supposedly form the basis of an objective standard of 'right and wrong'...as opposed to alleged moral relativism as per the thread title.

That is another falsehood here is what I recently posted to you:

New Testament moral wrongs:

Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, witchcraft, lust, drunkenness, unjustified taking of human life, stealing, lying, unbelief, rage, covetousness, greed, idolatry, unbelief, pride, kidnapping, prostitution, bearing false witness, unforgiveness, blasphemy, deceit, fraud, envy, sorcery, hypocrisy, etc...

New Testament moral goods:

Loving God, loving our fellow man, being kind, following the golden rule, forgiving, being generous, helping the poor, being self-controlled, gracious, being honest, or refraining from all of the moral wrongs above...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Progress/page4

[seer]

I'm not sure what your point is - what exactly was laudable in one age, and a sin in another? And that is nonsense Crep, there is no newer Covenant, the next event will be Christ's return, and at that point the sheep will be separated from the goats and having me as your neighbor will be the least of your worries.

That doesn't alter the fact that there are atheists who genuinely believe there are objective moral rules.

I have no idea what that means. Moral rules or laws are born in or proceed from minds, so where do these objective moral rules exist apart from minds?

Yes, but not for wanting something to be true turning into believing it is true. You would know you had altered a moral rule merely out of convenience, and not because you believed the rule to be wrong. It wouldn't be a moral rule anymore; not a rule of how you should behave.

I have no idea what that means, if a man changes a moral ideal out of convenience he has changed it. To him it is now right. And why not change it based on convenience, if that is a good reason to him who are we to judge?

The collection of moral rules that a person believes to exist independently from opinion.

How is that possible? We can understand how the law of God could exist, since God is a rational mind, a moral being. How, where, do these moral rules exist apart from minds? And even if they did exist what authority do they have over us?

I'm asking the atheist...

[crepuscule]

I'm not sure what your point is - what exactly was laudable in one age, and a sin in another?

The stoning to death of witches, according to you.

And that is nonsense Crep, there is no newer Covenant, the next event will be Christ's return, and at that point the sheep will be separated from the goats and having me as your neighbor will be the least of your worries.

I have no idea what that means. Moral rules or laws are born in or proceed from minds, so where do these objective moral rules exist apart from minds?

I have no idea what that means, if a man changes a moral ideal out of convenience he has changed it.

Yes but not because he believes it to be wrong, but because he wants it to be wrong.

To him it is now right. And why not change it based on convenience, if that is a good reason to him who are we to judge?

He can do all he likes, but I find it an extremely poor reason, and I don't think I could ever do that, thereby answering your OP. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

How is that possible? We can understand how the law of God could exist, since God is a rational mind, a moral being. How, where, do these moral rules exist apart from minds? And even if they did exist what authority do they have over us?

Well, I suppose objective moral rules could exist as objectively as mathematical truths. But don't ask me, I'm not an objective moralist.

I'm asking the atheist...

[seer]

The stoning to death of witches, according to you.

But I wouldn't see the death penalty for witches as laudable in one age, and a sin in another. How did you come to that conclusion?

Yes but not because he believes it to be wrong, but because he wants it to be wrong.

And that could lead to him believing it is no longer wrong. That exactly was the case for me.

He can do all he likes, but I find it an extremely poor reason, and I don't think I could ever do that, thereby answering your OP. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

Of course you are. But "reasons" are just as subjective and personal as anything else.

Well, I suppose objective moral rules could exist as objectively as mathematical truths. But don't ask me, I'm not an objective moralist.

Well I can prove empirically that 2+2=4, how could one prove empirically that murder is wrong? These are different things.

So you are a moral relativist?

[crepuscule]

But I wouldn't see the death penalty for witches as laudable in one age, and a sin in another. How did you come to that conclusion?

And that could lead to him believing it is no longer wrong. That exactly was the case for me.

But my point was he would know the original cause for his change of belief was not the statement is wrong, but

Of course you are. But "reasons" are just as subjective and personal as anything else.

Of course. And of course so are yours.

Well I can prove empirically that 2+2=4, how could one prove empirically that murder is wrong? These are different things.

So you are a moral relativist?

Yes.

[Tassman]

That is another falsehood here is what I recently posted to you:

Oh, witches do exist, I thought you and CS Lewis were doubtful about this...although God seems to have no doubt. Otherwise it's just the standard 'rights and wrongs' of humanity throughout history and subject to modification as social mores change, e.g. adultery/remarriage, homosexuality and the place of women in society.

[seer]

Oh, witches do exist, I thought you and CS Lewis were doubtful about this...although God seems to have no doubt. Otherwise it's just the standard 'rights and wrongs' of humanity throughout history and subject to modification as social mores change, e.g. adultery/remarriage, homosexuality and the place of women in society.

Oh stop Tass, you asked for a list and I gave it to you. And I have no idea what your point is, adultery and homosexuality are still morally wrong.

[seer]

Where did I say that we should disobey the law of God?

But my point was he would know the original cause for his change of belief was not the statement is wrong, but

Crep, if ethics are truly relative what is the big deal in how one got there? Why not, to a degree, choose actual pleasure over some relative moral ideal?

Of course. And of course so are yours.

Of course I would disagree, the law of God is universal and binding. And all men are accountable to it.

Well they should actually have an argument. Look, math does not exist without minds. Distance for instance would exist between the moon and earth apart from minds, but it takes a mind, or minds, to assign subjective tokens of measurement. But distance is a real physical thing, the math is based on a physical reality, morality is not like that. The ideal that murder is wrong is not a physical thing.

[Tassman]

Oh stop Tass, you asked for a list and I gave it to you. And I have no idea what your point is, adultery and homosexuality are still morally wrong.

Your "list" is just the standard collection of 'rights and wrongs' common to humanity throughout history, not unique to your deity. Further, it has historically been subject to modification as social values have changed. E.g. adultery/remarriage, homosexuality and the lower status of women in society are no longer regarded as rigidly as previously. Homosexuality is acceptable to the majority of people throughout the Western world...even among some Christians. Women are allowed to hold positions of power. And promiscuous adulterers are voted into office. What you regard as "still morally wrong" is not the position of most people, which would explain why religion is in decline in the West. It's irrelevant.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/prot...ry?id=54995663