Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course! Every concept of God must be judged on its own merit and its own claims. I disbelieve in Mystic's version of God for different reasons than I disbelieve in Vizio's.
Generally speaking they all come back to lack of evidence, but in addition some concepts are less internally consistent or coherent than others.
-NoCapo
Okay. So just to clarify, when you say 'judging' (particularly in relation to morality) you are not attempting to say that 'because there is lack of evidence' you can judge such ideas on moral grounds, correct?
We created the notion of god, we should be able to delete that notion as well
I have asked already but will do so again.
How are you going to exterminate the idea of G()D? I understand the focus is upon the 'biblical idea of God', but (if you find a way to do so) will the process stop once that biblical idea of G()D has been eradicated? Or will you then turn your attention onto any and all other ideas of G()D?
Now the 'HOW' bit might be answered with the word 'education' but then I remind you of this which points out that 'education' has its own problems...
Also will remind you that it is quite common for atheists to agree that removing religions from the world stage will not change the morailty of human being or make things any better. Materialistic greed and over bearing social regulations will not disapear magically as a result. Indeed, they might even increase.
Okay. So just to clarify, when you say 'judging' (particularly in relation to morality) you are not attempting to say that 'because there is lack of evidence' you can judge such ideas on moral grounds, correct?
If you present to me a narrative of a God's behavior, if you present to me a God with characteristics that necessitate its responsibility for human suffering, and its ability to alleviate it, then I can judge that God as a moral actor. It makes no difference if it exists or not, I can hold it up alongside my moral yardstick and evaluate it, just as I can Nero, King Arthur, Hitler, Johnny Appleseed, or Voldemort.
The lack of evidence comes in to the distinction between existence and nonexistence, not the determination of its moral character. I can morally condemn both Voldemort and Hitler, but the evidence only supports the literal existence of one of them... Voldemort is not somehow more or less moral for lack of evidence supporting his existence, they are two separate questions.
If you present to me a narrative of a God's behavior, if you present to me a God with characteristics that necessitate its responsibility for human suffering, and its ability to alleviate it, then I can judge that God as a moral actor. It makes no difference if it exists or not, I can hold it up alongside my moral yardstick and evaluate it, just as I can Nero, King Arthur, Hitler, Johnny Appleseed, or Voldemort.
The lack of evidence comes in to the distinction between existence and nonexistence, not the determination of its moral character. I can morally condemn both Voldemort and Hitler, but the evidence only supports the literal existence of one of them... Voldemort is not somehow more or less moral for lack of evidence supporting his existence, they are two separate questions.
-NoCapo
The clarity of your logic and reasoning is quite impressive, NoCapo. IOU another Rep. I am just saddened that you do not embrace my views as at least plausible and consistent with extant science.
If you present to me a narrative of a God's behavior, if you present to me a God with characteristics that necessitate its responsibility for human suffering, and its ability to alleviate it, then I can judge that God as a moral actor. It makes no difference if it exists or not, I can hold it up alongside my moral yardstick and evaluate it, just as I can Nero, King Arthur, Hitler, Johnny Appleseed, or Voldemort.
The lack of evidence comes in to the distinction between existence and nonexistence, not the determination of its moral character. I can morally condemn both Voldemort and Hitler, but the evidence only supports the literal existence of one of them... Voldemort is not somehow more or less moral for lack of evidence supporting his existence, they are two separate questions.
-NoCapo
Yes thanks for that.
It seems to me that because of the nature of our reality you cannot accept that any G()D could exist and not be immoral, would that be correct?
"Evil" is an assumed and rather squishy definition of, or perhaps explanation of, "wrong doing" and both terms tend to beg the question, pre-assuming that there is some kind of objective, externally bestowed right and wrong. I see no reason to insist on using loaded terms unless your are struggling to impose an up front assumption on observable reality.
No struggles or assumptions - just curiosity. That's why I ask questions.
So if I'm understanding you rightly, there's really no such thing as right and wrong or good and evil - it all basically boils down to personal preference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
People act contrary to their rational self-interest and/or contrary to empathy all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Morality is only concerned with determining what is contrary to societal objectives, and encouraging / discouraging actions accordingly. I am a materialist, which means, not that I know there is nothing immaterial, but that I see no reason to believe there is anything that is not ultimately material. As such I would say that even psychological motivations are rooted in physical processes. I disbelieve in true free will but I do believe in constrained free choice.
It seems to me that if we follow this line of reasoning through we would be forced to conclude that there's really no such thing as personal responsibility. After all, "psychological motivations are rooted in physical processes."
Again, I simply can't abide by this. It just doesn't square with reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I didn't say anything about the existence of god, although one's (dis)belief in objective capital-T immutable externally bestowed truth certainly has implications concerning that.
I simply don't see any evidence that anyone's asserted morality is objective, even when this claim is made.
Biblical morality is simply an assertion like any other. It deserves no special pleading. It is subject to (mis)interpretation, manipulation, (mis)understanding like anything else. That is why professed Christians can get different moralities from the Bible depending on a variety of factors. How some Christians think abortion or homosexuality or a host of other things are grossly immoral or perfectly fine, working from the very same source document.
You first state that "nothing is entirely objective" and follow it up with "I don't see any evidence that anyone's asserted morality is objective."
Are you inferring that there COULD be objective morality and that God COULD exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Nothing is beyond debate, nor did I say that it was. I simply said that there is wide agreement on some matters, such as murder, pedophilia, and property theft.
Well, I'm inclined to think that the pro-abortion and pro-physician assisted suicide people would take issue with murder - in that they would at least want to provide a very careful definition of what it is that actually constitutes murder. The NAMBLA folks would quite likely take issue with laws restricting pedophilia. As well, it would appear that property theft or just outright theft is fine so long as there's a majority vote in the United States Congress.
I quite agree, nothing is apparently beyond debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Maybe not with the reality you want to promulgate, but with actual reality, yes. Morality has to reflect our evolving understanding of benefits and harms. If it didn't we would still be keeping slaves, denying the vote to women, and lynching blacks.
It seems to me, that under the rubric of moral relativism, we would at least be forced to allow for the possibility that keeping slaves, denying the vote to women and lynching blacks could come back in style. After all, societies come and societies go. So called rights and wrongs are always subject to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
There is absolutely nothing inherently about murder and theft that should inherently incline us to outlaw them. Indeed, we allow both in limited circumstances. You can commit mass murder with impunity if it is authorized by a military chain of command to which you are a party -- especially if that military ends up the victor. You can take what belongs to others via imminent domain, or taxation.
The reason that most societies are inclined to put the same sorts of restrictions on these actions is that failure to do so results in widespread suffering and societal collapse. Nothing more and nothing less.
Fascinating take - fascinating!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I am not at all eager for anyone to assume anything. I simply see no evidence that there are any actors in human society other than humans.
Suggesting that humans are too low and mean to make sound decisions on their own behalf and require some superior power to do it for them is just a recipe for irresponsibility. It is an infantile avoidance of the tough moral considerations that go into running a complex society. It is no different than the demand of the tyrant: yours is not to reason why, yours is but to obey. There is never a valid rationale for abrogating our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other to some third party who promises they know best, whether the absolute ruler is human, or an asserted invisible deity, or an organization claiming to represent such a thing.
As far as I can see, the appeal of abrogating our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other is the short term ease of not having to ponder thorny questions. Just tell me what is right, tell me what to do, take all my moral responsibility from me, is the mentality that seeks such evasions. So in reality the tyranny comes not from society in the long run, but from authority-structures that are not accountable to reality. Religious dogma is not the only source of such authority-structures, but it is a major one.
We've primarily been centered on the topic of moral relativity. If there is no higher kind than mankind then it seems logical to conclude that all morality is indeed relative. This again begs the question: Is there a higher being than mankind? If so, then it seems that we at least have a theoretical basis for grounding objective moral standards.
It seems to me that because of the nature of our reality you cannot accept that any G()D could exist and not be immoral, would that be correct?
No, of course not! There is only a subset of all possible definitions of God that have this or similar problems.
For example, MysticPhD's concept of God concept of God avoid most of these pitfalls. Mystic would argue that the objectionable actions of God recorded in various holy books are simply wrong, that God does not inflict eternal punishment on anyone, and that God is not responsible for the universe or mankind in the way traditional Abrahamic religions teach. His concept of God I believe is unevidenced, speculative and potentially has some logical issues, but I cannot come to the conclusion that it, were it to exist, would be evil.
My discussion here has been with Biblical Literalists who are attempting to claim that there is an objective morality based on their concept of God. I have provided what I feel is a fairly sound argument that if such a being were to exist, it could not in any meaningful sense of the word, be called good. If you want to postulate a different type of God, then it would need to be evaluated, both for morality and the liklihood of existence, separately.
We've primarily been centered on the topic of moral relativity. If there is no higher kind than mankind then it seems logical to conclude that all morality is indeed relative. This again begs the question: Is there a higher being than mankind? If so, then it seems that we at least have a theoretical basis for grounding objective moral standards.
This is the same question I am struggling to get Viz to explain. If there is a "higher" being than mankind, why should it be the basis for our morality? Is it because it is smarter than us? Stronger than us? What would make its definition of good and evil the correct one?
No, of course not! There is only a subset of all possible definitions of God that have this or similar problems.
For example, MysticPhD's concept of God concept of God avoid most of these pitfalls. Mystic would argue that the objectionable actions of God recorded in various holy books are simply wrong, that God does not inflict eternal punishment on anyone, and that God is not responsible for the universe or mankind in the way traditional Abrahamic religions teach. His concept of God I believe is unevidenced, speculative and potentially has some logical issues, but I cannot come to the conclusion that it, were it to exist, would be evil.
My discussion here has been with Biblical Literalists who are attempting to claim that there is an objective morality based on their concept of God. I have provided what I feel is a fairly sound argument that if such a being were to exist, it could not in any meaningful sense of the word, be called good. If you want to postulate a different type of God, then it would need to be evaluated, both for morality and the liklihood of existence, separately.
-NoCapo
Thanks for that. The only postulating I have done re ideas of G()D are in this thread.
This is the same question I am struggling to get Viz to explain. If there is a "higher" being than mankind, why should it be the basis for our morality? Is it because it is smarter than us? Stronger than us? What would make its definition of good and evil the correct one? -NoCapo
The 'truth' question.
Absolute truth exists.
How do I know it exists?
One cannot deny the existence of absolute truth without simultaneously affirming it. It's like trying to deny your own existence or the the existence of knowledge - to deny is to affirm.
The logical law of identity and non-contradiction.
"It is what it is."
Something cannot be what it is and be something else at the same time and in the same sense which goes hand in hand with the law of the excluded middle.
SOMETHING is TRUE about God and the Bible. Truth is mutually exclusive by nature. It automatically excludes falsehood.
Based upon the various arguments I've been hearing, or lack there of, in support of moral relativity, I'm actually more convinced that atheism is false than I am that Christianity is true.
Origin. Meaning. Morality. destiny.
The worldview that can best address these questions in the most coherent and comprehensive way is most likely to be the TRUE worldview.
It's very easy to sit back and simply attack and criticize worldviews that you find to be personally distasteful. Cap, how about you and your cohorts having the moral courage to actually stand up and provide some sort of coherent defense for atheism and moral relativity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am just saddened that you do not embrace my views as at least plausible and consistent with extant science.
