Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Why should one accept YOUR "say so" of what God's "say so" is claimed to be? Many of your fellow Christians disagree agree about what God supposedly means. Or, are you merely retreating to your usual position of "I'm right and they're wrong...so there?"

Well they are wrong and I am right. What do you have concerning moral question but your say so?

[seer]

Morals are based on human reason and are relative to ourselves, yes, not on some unknown objective and arbitrary standard.

So if the majority uses their human reason to take advantage of the minority for their benefit then that is a good.

[JimL]

So if the majority uses their human reason to take advantage of the minority for their benefit then that is a good.

Nope, as you have admitted yourself, abusing others doesn't make for a peaceful society seer. Abused minorities will always rise up which is why the adage "Do unto others........

[Tassman]

Well they are wrong and I am right.

According to your "say so". I think you are wrong and so do many of your fellow Christians because pre-existing community values always guide interpretation of the Bible.

What do you have concerning moral questions but your say so?

What I've got "concerning moral questions" are the universal ethical principles commonly held by most people in our community and culture. Same as you, minus the irrelevant god bit.

[seer]

Nope, as you have admitted yourself, abusing others doesn't make for a peaceful society seer. Abused minorities will always rise up which is why the adage "Do unto others........

Jim you are not getting the point, why is a peaceful society a moral good? It is a moral good because we who PREFER a peaceful society SAY SO.

[seer]

What I've got "concerning moral questions" are the universal ethical principles commonly held by most people in our community and culture. Same as you, minus the irrelevant god bit.

You like the universal ethical principles in China, Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Muslim nations?

[JimL]

Jim you are not getting the point, why is a peaceful society a moral good? It is a moral good because we who PREFER a peaceful society SAY SO.

No, you are not getting the point, seer. A peaceful society is a moral good because that is ultimately what morals are all about, i.e. the good of the people. In other words, morals have a relative purpose to human beings, they serve to promote the best interests of people, their lives, their survival. Morality for you, on the other hand , serves no purpose to humanity, it's simply the arbitrary law of a god. If I ask you the same question, you will answer it's moral simply because "god says so." Actually it's kind of a silly question if you stop and think about it. "why is a peaceful society good?" Think about it!

[seer]

No, you are not getting the point, seer. A peaceful society is a moral good because that is ultimately what morals are all about, i.e. the good of the people. In other words, morals have a relative purpose to human beings, they serve to promote the best interests of people, their lives, their survival. Morality for you, on the other hand , serves no purpose to humanity, it's simply the arbitrary law of a god. If I ask you the same question, you will answer it's moral simply because "god says so." Actually it's kind of a silly question if you stop and think about it. "why is a peaceful society good?" Think about it!

Jim why is our survival a moral good. Please give a direct answer that does not rely on your or our subjective say so... And the law of God is not arbitrary, it is grounded in His immutable moral character and includes those things that lead to a peaceful society like the love of neighbor and the golden rule. Your belief supports the killing of millions of unborn children.

[JimL]

Jim why is our survival a moral good.

I just told you why, but you never seem to get it.

Please give a direct answer that does not rely on your or our subjective say so...

Because that is what is meant by "good." Good, morally speaking, are those behaviors which are in the best interests of human beings, and it is in our best interests, both as individuals and by extension as a community of individuals to survive and to live in peace with one another. Of course survival is a subjective good, that's why you want to survive eternally. But it isn't survival that we are talking about, we're talking about the moral laws that serve to facilitate our continued survival, our peaceful existence. It's the laws themselves that are objectively "good" or "bad," and that which defines them as such is whether or not they ultimately serve the best interests of human beings living together in community.

And the law of God is not arbitrary, it is grounded in His immutable moral character and includes those things that lead to a peaceful society like the love of neighbor and the golden rule.

Seer, god is not necessary in order that we establish moral rules which serve the purpose of creating a peaceful society. We don't need god in order to establish and follow the golden rule. And that is the argument that you have been continuously denying. The fact that the moral laws work, that they serve our best interests as a community is what matters, not where they come from.

Your belief supports the killing of millions of unborn children.

Fetus's seer, fetus's. And btw, your god, if you believe that silly stuff, killed everyone by drowning them. Is that what you mean by Gods laws being grounded in his immutable moral character?

[Tassman]

You like the universal ethical principles in China, Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Muslim nations?

[seer]

Because that is what is meant by "good." Good, morally speaking, are those behaviors which are in the best interests of human beings, and it is in our best interests, both as individuals and by extension as a community of individuals to survive and to live in peace with one another. Of course survival is a subjective good, that's why you want to survive eternally. But it isn't survival that we are talking about, we're talking about the moral laws that serve to facilitate our continued survival, our peaceful existence. It's the laws themselves that are objectively "good" or "bad," and that which defines them as such is whether or not they ultimately serve the best interests of human beings living together in community.

Right believing that our survival is a moral good is based on say so. Which means that what supports that survival is also based on say so. You have a particular idea what a peaceful society should look like, the ruling Communist Chinese or North Koreans another. I mean in your "peaceful" society it is perfectly fine to kill millions of our own offspring in the womb.

Seer, god is not necessary in order that we establish moral rules which serve the purpose of creating a peaceful society. We don't need god in order to establish and follow the golden rule. And that is the argument that you have been continuously denying. The fact that the moral laws work, that they serve our best interests as a community is what matters, not where they come from.

Perhaps Jim, people need to believe in a god and universal moral truths to be good, or try to be good. Perhaps your moral relativism does not give men (generally) the ethical unction necessary to act correctly.

[seer]

Preferably the universal ethical principles of the secular nations that rank at the top of the Human Development and Happiness Indices. Christians have held just as many diverse views towards morality and governance through time.

That us just stupid Tass, I have showed you a number of studies that clearly shows that devote religious people are generally happier, more confident, at peace and hopeful. So if your secular countries did become more religious they would be even more happier. Never mind the fact that many of these countries are not that diverse. Which brings its own problems.

That is a bold faced lie Tass, for instance I made clear on the issue of homosexuality the Biblical texts are quite clear. No interpretation is needed. And that those who are Biblically literate fall on my side of the debate, it is the Biblically illiterate who disagree.

[JimL]

Right believing that our survival is a moral good is based on say so. Which means that what supports that survival is also based on say so. You have a particular idea what a peaceful society should look like, the ruling Communist Chinese or North Koreans another. I mean in your "peaceful" society it is perfectly fine to kill millions of our own offspring in the womb.




Perhaps Jim, people need to believe in a god and universal moral truths to be good, or try to be good. Perhaps your moral relativism does not give men (generally) the ethical unction necessary to act correctly.

I'm sure seer that there are many immature fearful people out there who do need an authoritarian figure offering them rewards and threatening punishments in order that they behave like ethical citizens of society and thats why we created gods. You yourself, I believe, have admitted as much in the past with respect to your own behavior. So, we may need the psychological aspect of a frightening and vengeful god in order to keep certain people from acting on their basest natures, but, moral laws, in and of themselves are defined by us, for our purposes, and need have nothing to do with a god. This is why it is sometimes said that if there were no god, and there is no evidence that there is, that we would create one, and we did.

[seer]

I'm sure seer that there are many immature fearful people out there who do need an authoritarian figure offering them rewards and threatening punishments in order that they behave like ethical citizens of society and thats why we created gods.

They question is why Jim, why should others act in a way that you think is moral. Why should the leaders of North Korea or China for instance follow your ethical reasoning or the West's moral reasoning? There is no rational reason, since there are no universal moral truths. There is no justice, finally, in this universe, so why not use power to control the population? You are nothing Jim, we are nothing, the accidental byproduct of the forces of nature. Might does define right, because there is nothing else.

[carpedm9587]

Morality is summed up in the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That wouldn't make any sense if morality weren't defined in terms of society. And I agree, morals are not right because most people agree they are right, morals are right because they serve the best interests of the whole of society within the which those people live.

Jim, the "golden rule" is not a moral precept in and of itself. It's just a social contract that tells us how to apply moral precepts. It basically says, in a social group, the things you value and wish to protect are better protected if the entire group is acting to protect them. That means you not only act to protect what you value but assume others value these things as well and act to protect those things for others." It is essentially strength in numbers.

And you still are trying to link morality to a non-existent absolute or objective metric. "What is beneficial to society" is not something that can be objectively measured, because it will depend on what the individual making the assessment values most. Most of us value life above all, so we have a prohibition against random or even most forms of targeted killing. But someone may look at the current population, the strain on natural resources, the degree of poverty and starvation, and conclude that society would be benefited if we simply eliminated all those not "adequately" contributing - perhaps up to 50% of the overall population (depending on what constitutes "adequately"). Most of us would look in horror at such a concept, and act to restrict that person from carrying out that moral framework. But for them, it would be a "good" that is for the "benefit of society."

There is no such thing as an absolute or objective "benefit of society" metric. It will differ (to some degree) person to person.