Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostGod's law is not arbitrary, since it is grounded in His immutable moral character and on His omniscience.
e.g. Moses ask for laws for the people, and God gives him a set of laws appropriate for that people. So a Moral Person of that time would have being obediently reading/learning those law codes and following those rules.
Then, later, with Jesus, we see a rejection/"fulfillment" of the ritual/sacrificial laws given to Moses. God gives a different set of rules to the people. The Moral Person of that time is then no longer reading/learning/following those Mosaic law codes, but is now following a set of New Testament behaviors that are God-mandated.
In light of that, I have to wonder how you could define "moral progress". If we compare a group of Israelites attempting to follow the Law as they understood it and being reasonably successful at doing so, to a group of Christians attempting to follow the NT teachings as they understood them and being reasonably successful at doing so, is there any "moral progress" there? Or is "moral progress" just a thing for a specific individual as they become better at following God's will as they understand it? Or is it when they are better at understanding God's will? Has a Seventh Day Adventist made moral progress over a Roman Catholic simply by virtue of being the one and not the other?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostReally Star, how do objective or universal morals exist in your atheist world? What does that even mean?
But I totally reject your definition of the word "objective" and think you're just completely wrong about what that word means. You use it totally wrong and have completely made up your own fantasy meaning. I suggest you entirely avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" ever again and instead explain yourself more clearly using other words and phrases.
Your signature makes me laugh at you btw."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostBut presumably you think his decrees are based on the situation humanity happens to be in at a given time.
e.g. Moses ask for laws for the people, and God gives him a set of laws appropriate for that people. So a Moral Person of that time would have being obediently reading/learning those law codes and following those rules.
Then, later, with Jesus, we see a rejection/"fulfillment" of the ritual/sacrificial laws given to Moses. God gives a different set of rules to the people. The Moral Person of that time is then no longer reading/learning/following those Mosaic law codes, but is now following a set of New Testament behaviors that are God-mandated.
In light of that, I have to wonder how you could define "moral progress". If we compare a group of Israelites attempting to follow the Law as they understood it and being reasonably successful at doing so, to a group of Christians attempting to follow the NT teachings as they understood them and being reasonably successful at doing so, is there any "moral progress" there? Or is "moral progress" just a thing for a specific individual as they become better at following God's will as they understand it? Or is it when they are better at understanding God's will? Has a Seventh Day Adventist made moral progress over a Roman Catholic simply by virtue of being the one and not the other?Last edited by seer; 07-28-2018, 09:09 AM.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 Starlight View PostGiven how many times I have explained it to you in the past, I think you're just incapable of learning.
But I totally reject your definition of the word "objective" and think you're just completely wrong about what that word means. You use it totally wrong and have completely made up your own fantasy meaning. I suggest you entirely avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" ever again and instead explain yourself more clearly using other words and phrases.
Your signature makes me laugh at you btw.Last edited by seer; 07-28-2018, 09:11 AM.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 PostSo what is your point? Of course the Christian would say that following the moral principles in the New Testament is moral progress, and even if the Christian is not under the Mosaic civil code you also know that there are moral principles that transcend both Testaments. And this would apply to the individual, of course as more individuals follow these principles the more the larger culture or church body will be influenced.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf the the rules of behavior change you call it the civil code of conduct rather than the moral code of conduct. Can you explain?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 PostObjective means that which exists independently of the viewer (God's law exists independently of humankind, the viewer)
If you don't like that use universal."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is wrong Tass and you know it, I have given you, more that once, a long and defined list of universal moral truths.
Comment
-
-
BTW on my to-read list is Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (That link takes you to a full PDF version of the book, for anyone interested in reading it online or on their ebook reader). Obviously seer, that's an example of a leading modern atheist moral philosopher talking about "moral progress", so you could learn from him how atheists think about moral progress. I believe the thesis of the book is that over history the people we have cared about being moral toward have expanded from "us and our immediate family" out to "our tribe" out to "our country" out to "our race" out to "the entire world".
In social-science the idea of a group we feel loyalty to / moral duty toward is the idea of an "ingroup-outgroup". And it can be quite enlightening in any situation to look at who a person perceives as the 'ingroup' and who they perceive as their 'outgroup'. One of the big findings of the research of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt is that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals in the US is that liberals perceive the entire world to be their ingroup and have no outgroup while conservatives have ingroup-outgroup loyalty and this comes across as animosity toward their outgroups (Muslims, non-Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, etc)."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMost of what was sin (or immoral) in the Old Testament is the same in the New Testament. The civil code largely was about how to punish these wrongs under the Theocratic government of Israel.
And if the punishment is immoral now, then it must have been immoral then as well, no? Like "the punishment" of stoning gay people to death, I think we can agree, even as a punishment, would be immoral behavior in itself today, so it must have been immoral then as well, no?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMost of what was sin (or immoral) in the Old Testament is the same in the New Testament. The civil code largely was about how to punish these wrongs under the Theocratic government of Israel.
And, what's this division into an absolute moral law including a death penalty, e.g. adultery, into Civil Code vis-a-vis God's Law? This is merely an interpretation of the Law according to modern values, not unquestioning obedience to it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostUniversal in what sense? Let's take the Golden Rule which has reoccurred throughout human history and in many different cultures and religions:"do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Is that "universal"?
The word "objective" in standard usage doesn't mean independent of a viewer, it means independent of all viewers, including God. The moral views you outline are "subjective" according to normal definitions because they depend on God.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 Starlight View PostBTW on my to-read list is Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (That link takes you to a full PDF version of the book, for anyone interested in reading it online or on their ebook reader). Obviously seer, that's an example of a leading modern atheist moral philosopher talking about "moral progress", so you could learn from him how atheists think about moral progress. I believe the thesis of the book is that over history the people we have cared about being moral toward have expanded from "us and our immediate family" out to "our tribe" out to "our country" out to "our race" out to "the entire world".
In social-science the idea of a group we feel loyalty to / moral duty toward is the idea of an "ingroup-outgroup". And it can be quite enlightening in any situation to look at who a person perceives as the 'ingroup' and who they perceive as their 'outgroup'. One of the big findings of the research of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt is that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals in the US is that liberals perceive the entire world to be their ingroup and have no outgroup while conservatives have ingroup-outgroup loyalty and this comes across as animosity toward their outgroups (Muslims, non-Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, etc).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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment