Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

You mean what scripture says in your opinion. You are demonstrating one of the greatest problems with religious belief. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when differing interpretations of scripture are mutually exclusive. You're basically left with an: "I'm right and you're wrong" argument.

Again Tass, that is a lie. I completely resolved the homosexual question by the text. It is clear and unambiguous, and I can do it on any number of other moral issues. And Tass, you know what the texts actually say that is why you said this: Many other Christians disagree and view homosexuality in keeping with the psychiatric assessment of it, namely that it is a normal variant of human sexuality.

If Christians are denying the text for a psychiatric assessment then they have abandoned Scripture. There is a clear answer, they just don't like it. And remember rape is a normal variant of human sexuality, as is pedophilia. Being a normal variant tells us about the morality of the behavior.

[seer]

Yes, well that seems to be your problem, like seer, you don't see reasons why a thing is immoral, behaviors are only immoral to you because someone in authority "says so." So, why does god "say so"?

But Jim all you have is say so. Don't be a hypocrite. You already agreed that our survival is a moral good only because of our say so. And God wants peace, justice and goodness because that reflects His nature, and that is what He wants for His creatures. And that is as a good a reason as anything you have.

[rogue06]

I was also talking about the actual Nazis, specifically about Kristallnacht, which you don't seem to have recognised. If the Nazis were good at controlling the population, it was via state-sanctioned violence, not via a peaceful society.

If the Nazis had won WWII and controlled the world, society would have been extremely violent while they tried to eliminate Jews and non-Aryans.

As for totalitarianism tending to be peaceful, such peace as exists tends to be short-lived and followed by extremely brutal civil war. I invite you to look at totalitarian societies that exist today, and see how peaceful they are compared to Western democracies:

Saudi Arabia
The Sudan
North Korea
Syria
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea

IIRC the Nazis were quite fond of Arab Muslims even going so far as to designate some them, like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, for example, honorary Aryan status by the Nazis.

00000000000000arb1aaa.jpg
Hitler meeting with al-Husseini in 1941

That of course might have changed after they finished killing the Jews.

Oh, and as a side note, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the father of most of the Islamic terrorist organizations in the Middle East today, Hassan al-Banna, was a big fan of Hitler.

[Sparko]

Yes, well that seems to be your problem, like seer, you don't see reasons why a thing is immoral, behaviors are only immoral to you because someone in authority "says so." So, why does god "say so"?

You avoided my whole point again.

Give me an example of you believing something to be moral but it is in actuality immoral. And then tell me how you know it is actually immoral.

[Sparko]

I was also talking about the actual Nazis, specifically about Kristallnacht, which you don't seem to have recognised. If the Nazis were good at controlling the population, it was via state-sanctioned violence, not via a peaceful society.

If the Nazis had won WWII and controlled the world, society would have been extremely violent while they tried to eliminate Jews and non-Aryans.

I am talking about after they eliminated any opposition, Roy. Once they murdered everyone who opposed them or who was "inferior" the society would be extremely peaceful.

As for totalitarianism tending to be peaceful, such peace as exists tends to be short-lived and followed by extremely brutal civil war. I invite you to look at totalitarian societies that exist today, and see how peaceful they are compared to Western democracies:

Saudi Arabia
The Sudan
North Korea
Syria
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea

Well let's see, China is still going strong. As is North Korea, Saudi Arabia. They keep the peace by killing anyone who opposes them. Therefore according to JimL's stated objective of morality, totalitarianism is moral, as is murdering anyone who opposes it.

[JimL]

But Jim all you have is say so. Don't be a hypocrite. You already agreed that our survival is a moral good only because of our say so. And God wants peace, justice and goodness because that reflects His nature, and that is what He wants for His creatures. And that is as a good a reason as anything you have.

Then I can assume that you now realize that god isn't necessary for morality, that morals are based on reason in relation to the peace, justice and the "good" of human society? Correct?

[seer]

Then I can assume that you now realize that god isn't necessary for morality, that morals are based on reason in relation to the peace, justice and the "good" of human society? Correct?

Of course God is necessary, we could never be truly loving and peaceful without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nor is there any real reason to be loving and peaceful if the opposite serves ones selfish desires.

[Sparko]

Then I can assume that you now realize that god isn't necessary for morality, that morals are based on reason in relation to the peace, justice and the "good" of human society? Correct?

"justice" and "peace" and "good" are all terms that you can't define without appealing to some objective standard if you believe morals are objective, JimL. Your entire theory falls apart because basically it is you who is deciding what is good for society in your theory. You already said that it doesn't matter what anyone actually believes is moral or not. You think there is some standard that needs to be applied to actions that has no reliance on what people believe. Yet you can't actually define what makes that "standard" the right one, other than to appeal to "justice" and "peace" and "good" which also rely on that objective standard you can't define. It's a circular argument.

[JimL]

You avoided my whole point again.

Give me an example of you believing something to be moral but it is in actuality immoral. And then tell me how you know it is actually immoral.

A thing is immoral if it shows itself to be in contradiction to the best interests of human society and ultimately to the best interests of the individual members thereof. Whether I believe that theft is moral or not is irrelevant, living in a world in which our property could legally be stolen would be detrimental to the best interests of society and to each of us as individuals whether we believe it or not. So how do I know that immoral behavior is actually immoral? Empirical evidence?

[JimL]

Of course God is necessary, we could never be truly loving and peaceful without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Well that is not an argument seer, that is simply a belief for which you need supporting evidence which you don't have.

Nor is there any real reason to be loving and peaceful if the opposite serves ones selfish desires.

So, if doing unto others as you would have done unto yourself supports your own selfish interests, then that is good reason to treat others how you would like to be treated. Correct?

[Sparko]

A thing is immoral if it shows itself to be in contradiction to the best interests of human society and ultimately to the best interests of the individual members thereof. Whether I believe that theft is moral or not is irrelevant, living in a world in which our property could legally be stolen would be detrimental to the best interests of society and to each of us as individuals whether we believe it or not. So how do I know that immoral behavior is actually immoral? Empirical evidence?

Again, give me an example of you believing something is moral when it actually is immoral.

[JimL]

Again, give me an example of you believing something is moral when it actually is immoral.

If I think something is immoral, how am I to argue that it is not immoral? That doesn't even make sense.

[seer]

Well that is not an argument seer, that is simply a belief for which you need supporting evidence which you don't have.

Well it is your belief that men will someday men live peaceably contrary to a long dark history of doing the opposite. I guess we all have faith Jim.

So, if doing unto others as you would have done unto yourself supports your own selfish interests, then that is good reason to treat others how you would like to be treated. Correct?

Why not follow the other golden rule? He with the most gold rules? There is no good reason not to take advantage of your fellow man if you have the power and can get away with it.

[Sparko]

If I think something is immoral, how am I to argue that it is not immoral? That doesn't even make sense.

exactly. So if everyone in the world thought that stealing was moral and good for society, how would anyone know that it was actually immoral? You claimed that no matter how many people believed something was moral or immoral didn't matter, since morality is objective.

Let's say you had a world where everyone believed stealing and killing people to get their stuff was completely normal and good for society. They even have studies showing how great it is for society by leading sociologists. You say that killing and stealing would still be immoral. Yet you can't explain how anyone would even know it was immoral or why it was immoral.

[JimL]

Well it is your belief that men will someday men live peaceably contrary to a long dark history of doing the opposite. I guess we all have faith Jim.

You're putting words in my mouth seer, I never said that.

Why not follow the other golden rule? He with the most gold rules? There is no good reason not to take advantage of your fellow man if you have the power and can get away with it.

Because sound reason would make it clear to you that the immoral tyrant is always at risk by the next immoral would be tyrant as well as that of the angry people. Heavy lies the head that wears the crown, particularly if the head is that of a evil tyrant. Hence the adage "do unto others......."