Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    No Tass, like with adultery, the texts concerning homosexuality are clear. If I interpreted "thou shall not commit adultery" as meaning you can commit adultery you would rightly say that changed the plain meaning of the text. And you know that would be the case.
    They are "clear" to Evangelicals, they are not so clear to many other Christians or the majority of the population of the developed world.

    That is false Tass, go back and reread what was discussed about the Mosaic Civil Code and the fact that those penalties were applied in the context of a Theocracy.
    Nonsense! It is clearly an attempt to rationalise God’s “clear” command to execute adulterers etc. If you really believed that homosexuality, adultery, disobedience to parents etc, etc, etc., warrants ‘death’ as per God’s commands you would be lobbying for their reintroduction in a bible-based society like the USA. The fact that you don't is indicative of the fact that social values have changed...including yours.

    Again, you have no idea what the majority of Christians worldwide think. Second, yes, the majority of Christians who actually study scripture believe homosexuality is immoral. Biblically illiterate don't.
    Certainly the “majority of Christians, who actually study scripture” through the lens of Evangelicalism, believe homosexuality is immoral. The rest don’t, nor does the majority of the population.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      That is the point Jim, so what if a particular behavior benefits a society? Why is what benefits a society a moral good?
      What benefits a society a moral good because this is what "morality" is for. It is a system of rules of behaviour to best enable the functioning of society and ultimately to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. Or, in your view, does morality merely exist to keep God happy via their compliance?

      If enslaving a small minority benefits the majority, is that a moral good?
      That's tribalism, as exemplified by Moses. His god YAHWEH was a tribal god made in the image of a tribal society. We've come a long way since then and have developed the concept of universal human rights. So no, "enslaving a small minority is no longer regarded as a moral good
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        They are "clear" to Evangelicals, they are not so clear to many other Christians or the majority of the population of the developed world.
        Now Tass, you are just being a jerk. You know very well if I interpreted "thou shall not commit adultery" as meaning you can commit adultery, or that adultery was a moral good, I would be changing the very meaning of the text. If I started doing that to you, giving completely opposite meanings to what you were saying you would rightly protest.
        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 JimL View Post
          And it doesn't matter. What I said is that sound reason would bring most people to the same conclusion. You see, it's not that difficult to understand, unless, because of your agenda, you really don't want to understand. But I think that even you can figure out that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is beneficial to the good of society. Or does your lack of reason not allow you to see that?
          Jim you are all over the map, you said it doesn't matter what peopled believed. Yet now you are appealing to what people believe. You are not making sense.
          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 JimL View Post
            I see you continue to refuse to simply answer the question seer, so I will continue to ask it. Is adherence to the moral against theft beneficial to the peace and harmony of society or not? A simple yes or no answer will do.
            No Jim, you will not get a simple yes or no answer until you tell me why the good of a society is a moral good in the first place. But, I will tell you, that as we follow Biblical principles that will lead to more harmony, and a prohibition against stealing is one of those. Stealing, murder, fraud, etc... are not where the disharmony in a society will come from. Most people agree with those, it comes in other areas.
            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 JimL View Post
              Prima facie.
              Nope. Doesn't make a lick of sense, Jim. Prima Facie would mean it was obvious to everyone. Meaning everyone would agree on what is best and good for society. Which you already said doesn't matter.

              If it doesn't matter who believes what, then unless there is an objective standard that does not rely on anything human you have no way to know if something is "better" - one society might think slavery is "better" another might disagree. Both societies can flourish and grow.


              And it doesn't matter. What I said is that sound reason would bring most people to the same conclusion. You see, it's not that difficult to understand, unless, because of your agenda, you really don't want to understand. But I think that even you can figure out that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is beneficial to the good of society. Or does your lack of reason not allow you to see that?
              What if sound reason brought most people to come to the conclusion that enslaving black people was the best for their society? Or murdering Jews? Or hanging gays?



              Actually it is those of you on the other side of the argument that have this nebulous standard of "good" because we on this side know exactly what we mean by "good" i.e. that which is ultimately in our best interests as individuals living together in community. You don't know what you mean by good, other than that it exists out there as some sort of meaningless objective standard.
              But you just said it didn't matter what anyone believed was "good" - The Nazis believed that eliminating Jews was good for their society.
              Last edited by Sparko; 08-09-2018, 09:54 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                "enslaving a small minority is no longer regarded as a moral good"
                So you believe that enslaving a minority is a moral good - got it...
                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
                  Jim you are all over the map, you said it doesn't matter what peopled believed. Yet now you are appealing to what people believe. You are not making sense.
                  "People" means everybody seer, so it should be obvious to you and Sparko that what is best for all people, best for society as a whole, isn't dependent upon "all people" being in agreement about it.. Even your perspective concedes that much. Correct? So, lets go at it from your perspective then. Lets assume that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is an objective devine law. Whether everyone agrees with it or not, would you say that devine law in and of itself beneficial to human beings living together in community?
                  Last edited by JimL; 08-09-2018, 10:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Now Tass, you are just being a jerk. You know very well if I interpreted "thou shall not commit adultery" as meaning you can commit adultery, or that adultery was a moral good, I would be changing the very meaning of the text. If I started doing that to you, giving completely opposite meanings to what you were saying you would rightly protest.
                    You have undeniably changed the text "thou shall not commit adultery" by adapting it to today’s values. You have omitted God’s clear demand that adulterers be executed. My argument is that biblical morality is interpreted and adapted according to current social values. This has been true of slavery, interracial marriage, and the role of women in society and now the place of homosexuality in society. Many Christians nowadays recognise that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and cannot be judged as a sin. In short, the Pauline texts re homosexuality are reevaluated in the light of modern knowledge.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    So you believe that enslaving a minority is a moral good - got it...
                    I've just said it wasn't.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Jim you are all over the map, you said it doesn't matter what peopled believed. Yet now you are appealing to what people believe. You are not making sense.
                      What people believe in a multicultural society such as ours, is that people are free to believe what they choose provided it does not impinge upon what others believe. The less desirable alternative is enforcing rigid social conformity, religious or political, which is totalitarianism.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        You have undeniably changed the text "thou shall not commit adultery" by adapting it to today’s values. You have omitted God’s clear demand that adulterers be executed. My argument is that biblical morality is interpreted and adapted according to current social values. This has been true of slavery, interracial marriage, and the role of women in society and now the place of homosexuality in society.
                        Nonsense Tass, Christians are under no obligation to execute adulterers, even though the behavior is still immoral. Again, we are not under the Mosaic Civil code. If a particular state did execute adulterers that would be up to them.


                        I've just said it wasn't.
                        I was just interpreting what you said, and you said slavery was a moral good.


                        Many Christians nowadays recognise that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and cannot be judged as a sin. In short, the Pauline texts re homosexuality are reevaluated in the light of modern knowledge.
                        That makes no sense, what modern knowledge? Are you saying that if something is "natural" it is morally good?
                        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 JimL View Post
                          Correct? So, lets go at it from your perspective then. Lets assume that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is an objective devine law. Whether everyone agrees with it or not, would you say that devine law in and of itself beneficial to human beings living together in community?
                          Yes, that is what I believe, but you said all this does not depend on what any one believes...
                          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 JimL View Post
                            "People" means everybody seer, so it should be obvious to you and Sparko that what is best for all people, best for society as a whole, isn't dependent upon "all people" being in agreement about it.. Even your perspective concedes that much. Correct? So, lets go at it from your perspective then. Lets assume that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is an objective devine law. Whether everyone agrees with it or not, would you say that devine law in and of itself beneficial to human beings living together in community?
                            Previously you said that nobody had to believe in it. Are you now saying a certain percentage of people have to believe something is good for society before it is moral?

                            Example: The Moral Statement: Stealing is wrong.

                            Does that statement remain true even if nobody in the world believed it to be true? Or does it require a certain number of people to agree to it before it becomes true?

                            (PS it is spelled "divine" not "devine")

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Yes, that is what I believe, but you said all this does not depend on what any one believes...
                              Right, that's what I said, and it's what you say as well, i.e. what is good for human society is not dependent upon what any one individual believes. Ok, so we agree with that, right? The difference being is that you believe that such morals must have some kind of reality of their own, that they must exist as an objective divine law in order that they be in the best interests of human society. What I've been trying to explain to you is that morals directing human behaviors don't need to be objective realities in order that adherence to them benefit human society. I don't think it's that difficult to understand. The moral "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't have to have to exist as an objective reality, as divine law, in order that adherence to it benefits human society.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Previously you said that nobody had to believe in it. Are you now saying a certain percentage of people have to believe something is good for society before it is moral?
                                No, I'm saying that belief has nothing to do with it. The whole world could believe that theft, murder, rape, whatever is in the best interests of the community of man and yet that belief still be wrong.

                                Example: The Moral Statement: Stealing is wrong.

                                Does that statement remain true even if nobody in the world believed it to be true? Or does it require a certain number of people to agree to it before it becomes true?
                                If theft is not in the best interests of society, then it is not in the best interests of society whether anyone believes it or not. Of course, being rational beings most of us can see that stealing from each other is not in the best interests of society.

                                (PS it is spelled "divine" not "devine")
                                That's ok, there's no such thing anyway.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                                11 responses
                                88 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
                                2,045 responses
                                105,582 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X