Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (quote, God, evolution)

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Because it is YOU who has nothing ... because you haven't proven in any meaningful way that your God even exists much less that the Bible is the truth. How can any non-Christian form their basis of morality on the laws given by a "God" they don't believe exists? Reference those other 4 billion people that you ignore, as though anywhere not under Christian dominance is a vortex of violence, immorality, and decadence.

You've repeatedly failed to realize that you're so blinded by your religious beliefs and your dogmatic devotion to the Bible that you just can't wrap your brain around any other answer besides, "Because God says so."

I'm nt quoting Biblical verses here, Shirina. I'm arguing from philosophy. If your morality is subjective and is based on your opinions only.....how are they authoritative over anyone else.

Can you answer that?

I have as have many others. You're just refusing to accept a consensus as an answer - because YOU want there to be some ultimate law-giver that TELLS humanity what is moral

Where? Can you post a link where you have EXPLICITLY explained how subjective morality is authoritative over someone that does not recognize it or were part of that consensus?

. Obviously you feel that we're incapable of figuring it out for ourselves thus you NEED this outside source to give legitimacy to our morality. Except no such thing exists or our morality would be the same now as it was 3,000 years ago. Thankfully, it isn't.

How can someone that is not in authority over anyone else do such a thing? Can you explain that?

On the same basis that Jesus gave - do unto others. Now ... would I personally want to be put into a concentration camp and either starved to death or gassed? No. Therefore, I can judge Hitler as being wrong. And because the vast, vast, vast majority of people the world over agree with me, we can safely conclude, then, that Hitler's actions were immoral. See? No God needed AT ALL.

On the other hand, I think having profane or "forbidden" words is just plain silly and completely arbitrary. However, the vast majority of people disagree with me, therefore, swearing is still considered immoral. Again, no God needed ... AT ALL.



Vizio, you're the one who doesn't get it. You are quite correct - that once we take our moral code outside of our society and enter into another one, we cannot always assume that both moral systems will mesh well. That's why we actually HAVE different societies. We think morality is X, they think morality is Y. Thus I probably shouldn't walk around in a mini-skirt if I visit Yemen or Saudi Arabia.

HOWEVER ... the "do unto others" rule applies to other societies, as well, and that is how we can judge them. Have you EVER heard of any society where its people WANT to be murdered? No, of course not. Thus if a government like the Nazis is murdering people - guess what. We can deem its actions to be immoral.

So you are basing your morality on God's objective morality?

What gives me the right, Vizio, is that I am a free, thinking being, not some automaton that only knows how to do what it's told and to blindly obey orders.

What about others that don't recognize you as having any authority over them?

No, just obtuse.

Just answer the question. You seemed to suggest above that morality comes from God when you referenced Jesus. Then, you seem to change it to simply being your opinion. Which is it?

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Where? Can you post a link where you have EXPLICITLY explained how subjective morality is authoritative over someone that does not recognize it or were part of that consensus?

Another slight moving of the goalposts, but ok...

We don't have to. For example, I consider propagating religion to be immoral. It is detrimental to those who buy into it and can cause harm. Therefore what you do on Sundays is, in my view, immoral. I understand and accept that you do not agree and do not feel bound by my moral judgnent.

This moral judgment is completely different from law. At the moment, the law supports you and declares it to be your right to be immoral, and most likely always will support you.

Take a different topic, like murder. The concensus of society is that murder is immoral, and the force of law backs up societies view. Just like slavery. You consider it to be morally justified, but society does not. It doesn't really matter what you think, the concensus of the other people in your society overrules you.

Sometimes laws are moral, other times they are not. That view differs from one person to another.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I'm nt quoting Biblical verses here, Shirina. I'm arguing from philosophy. If your morality is subjective and is based on your opinions only.....how are they authoritative over anyone else.

Can you answer that?

Where? Can you post a link where you have EXPLICITLY explained how subjective morality is authoritative over someone that does not recognize it or were part of that consensus?

How can someone that is not in authority over anyone else do such a thing? Can you explain that?

So you are basing your morality on God's objective morality?

What about others that don't recognize you as having any authority over them?


Just answer the question. You seemed to suggest above that morality comes from God when you referenced Jesus. Then, you seem to change it to simply being your opinion. Which is it?

Only 8 questions this time.

He must be tired.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I have yet to see anyone actually explain why someone's subjective morality in America in 2014 is in any way capable to judging Nazi Germany in 1943.

Can you explain how your subjective morality is capable of judging that someone's subjective morality in 2014 is not capable of judging Nazi Germany in 1943? Why is your subjective conclusion on this matter any more valid than someone's subjective conclusion that they can? Do you not understand the trap you are setting for yourself every time you type your subjective opinion and conclusions about our subjective opinions and conclusions? In order for you to refute or deny our subjective conclusions being able to judge you have to judge our conclusion using your subjective judgment. Hello!

Vizio said: I'm not quoting Biblical verses here, Shirina. I'm arguing from philosophy. If your morality is subjective and is based on your opinions only.....how are they authoritative over anyone else.

Can you answer that?

Do you not understand that no one has actually tried to argue that an individual's subjective view is authoritative over anyone else's subjective view. Therefore, that is a straw man on your part.That being said it is consensus (inter-subjective persons) that renders the authority by means of enforcement of that consensus. That's it - that is the world we actually live in - and you can't argue against that fact whether your god exists or not.

Furthermore, I and others have answered how we can judge human actions, you just don't like the answers and do nothing to refute them other than by shear unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary and refuse to answer any questions put to you.

You're bankrupt and broken on the matter.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Furthermore, I and others have answered how we can judge human actions, you just don't like the answers and do nothing to refute them other than by shear unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary and refuse to answer any questions put to you.

You're bankrupt and broken on the matter.

It is utterly bizarre to me that someone would question our ability to judge the morality of Nazi Germany. (Who would even question that? Apparently that's too difficult for some fundamentalists. I have no idea why. Maybe they're just not equipped to recognize blatant immorality when it smacks them upside the head.) But I can. I hereby proclaim the Nazis to be morally wrong.

Who says I can't? 1) Someone who believes that a Jewish girl killed by the Nazis went to hell because she never accepted Christ as her savior. 2) Someone who believes Hitler made it to Heaven if he did.

So here's how it works: We can't proclaim the Nazi's immoral. Not allowed. We can't do that. Who are we to proclaim that........ But certain Christians can proclaim that the 6,000,000 Jews slaughtered by the Nazis went to hell because they were..... Jews. The audacity would be impressive were it not so nauseating.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Can you post a link where you have EXPLICITLY explained how subjective morality is authoritative over someone that does not recognize it or were part of that consensus?

How can someone that is not in authority over anyone else do such a thing? Can you explain that?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that morality is neither useful nor valid unless it is imposed by force. I suspect you combine this with a special pleading on god's behalf that for him and him alone it is not wrong for him to impose his requirements on others because he alone is omnibenevolent and perefectly just. But morality is not forced on anyone.

Societal morality gets its authority by the fact that most people willingly submit to it. Those who don't, endure the requisite sanctions, be they legal or social. Why do people submit to morality? Because they recognize it as a worthwhile tradeoff of personal choice in exchange for a peaceful and just society to participate in. Every social interaction involves compromise.

In one sense, when society says "don't murder" it has no authority over me because I could technically murder anyway. I could pick up a butcher knife right now and murder the first person I saw; there's nothing to stop me from the act. But the power in that particular rule is that most of us willingly refrain from murder, and furthermore, imprison and even kill those who do not refrain. We give up our autonomy in the interest of the greater good. Why is there a police force arresting transgressors? They exist by societal consensus to enforce the rules of societal consensus.

In your world someone who is morally perfect and all powerful is the only one who can author and enforce rules. In my world the morally imperfect and weak are the only ones TO author and enforce rules, but our imperfections are tempered by broad consensus. Some of us, left to ourselves, would do terrible things, but most of us would not, and the majority prevails.

I think part of your problem is that your belief-system has imbued you with a very pessimistic view of humanity. To you humanity is incapable of anything truly good and left to itself would destroy itself. To me, humanity is capable of transcending its imperfections to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

But your belief system doesn't even let you see the accomplishments of humanity to date. To you it is only the grace of god, not the puny and stunted efforts of man, polluted as those efforts are by man's bad motives and wickedness of heart.

Originally Posted by mordant

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that morality is neither useful nor valid unless it is imposed by force. I suspect you combine this with a special pleading on god's behalf that for him and him alone it is not wrong for him to impose his requirements on others because he alone is omnibenevolent and perefectly just. But morality is not forced on anyone.

Societal morality gets its authority by the fact that most people willingly submit to it. Those who don't, endure the requisite sanctions, be they legal or social. Why do people submit to morality? Because they recognize it as a worthwhile tradeoff of personal choice in exchange for a peaceful and just society to participate in. Every social interaction involves compromise.

In one sense, when society says "don't murder" it has no authority over me because I could technically murder anyway. I could pick up a butcher knife right now and murder the first person I saw; there's nothing to stop me from the act. But the power in that particular rule is that most of us willingly refrain from murder, and furthermore, imprison and even kill those who do not refrain. We give up our autonomy in the interest of the greater good. Why is there a police force arresting transgressors? They exist by societal consensus to enforce the rules of societal consensus.

In your world someone who is morally perfect and all powerful is the only one who can author and enforce rules. In my world the morally imperfect and weak are the only ones TO author and enforce rules, but our imperfections are tempered by broad consensus. Some of us, left to ourselves, would do terrible things, but most of us would not, and the majority prevails.

I think part of your problem is that your belief-system has imbued you with a very pessimistic view of humanity. To you humanity is incapable of anything truly good and left to itself would destroy itself. To me, humanity is capable of transcending its imperfections to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

But your belief system doesn't even let you see the accomplishments of humanity to date. To you it is only the grace of god, not the puny and stunted efforts of man, polluted as those efforts are by man's bad motives and wickedness of heart.

Yes! Also in Vizio's worldview God has abandoned his responsibility as the authority. If God existed and demands that every person is duty bound to his morality at any given time then when that morality is violated God as the authority has a duty himself to adjudicate the wrongs done - but alas he has abdicated that role either to humanity and/or to the future. Of course this is a post-hoc doctrine precisely because reality does not have this God authority do jack S#$T when his laws are broken in the present time - Will the real Authority Please Stand-Up?

The reality is we are the authority despite claims to the contrary - there is no evidence otherwise.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I'm nt quoting Biblical verses here, Shirina. I'm arguing from philosophy. If your morality is subjective and is based on your opinions only.....how are they authoritative over anyone else.

I was going to write a big post but I really don't have the confidence that you'll actually read it. So instead I'll ask you a question that should be fairly easy to answer.

If your driving down the street and a cop behind you turns on his lights and siren - do you just keep right on driving? And if you do pull over, do you tell the officer that he has no authority over you because the laws he enforces are based only on opinion?

If you can figure out why you stop for cops and actually obey them, you'll have answered most of your own questions.

Also, since we're talking philosophy now and not religion, look up "the social contract."

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by Vizio

What happens when someone else has a morality that resonates in their heart, feels true and authentic and they test it and examine it and it fits their belief system and conscience.....but it's different than your's? Who is right?

Who is right? Depends on the issue. Maybe both of us, maybe neither of us, maybe a little bit of both. They're going to act in accordance with their moral framework, and I'm going to act in accordance with mine, and at least one of us is going to be convinced that the other is acting wrongly.

Which is pretty much the way things work already. It's an imperfect world, filled with imperfect people acting in imperfect ways, and some of them do some pretty bad things because (according to your doctrine) the same god who designed an absolute morality for us to live by also gave us free will to act as we please. A lot of people do a lot of bad things because it's in their own self-interest to do them - and the rest of us aren't going to like that much, but there isn't a lot we can do about it, because that's just the way the world works.

Maybe I just don't understand your question. Was it intended to be rhetorical?

Originally Posted by Vizio

What happens when someone else has a morality that resonates in their heart, feels true and authentic and they test it and examine it and it fits their belief system and conscience.....but it's different than your's? Who is right?

Where have you been Vizio? Just look around at history. There are three possible things that can happen and all of them can overlap.

1) Force/Fear - people force others to acquiesce to their position and through fear get them to submit.

2) Reason - people debate and discuss their differences and some change their mind and eventually a consensus develops based upon principles that are based upon reason, science, logic, etc.

3) Freedom - you allow others to exist with such differences and set boundaries to that freedom based upon principles that are based upon reason, science, logic, etc.

You fall into #1.

The rest fall into #2 and #3. They have exercised their mind to arrive at an understanding of why reason and freedom are better off than otherwise. This is how the real world works. Start paying attention.

Invoking God does not grant an automatic understanding of 'Why' something is right - it just asserts it based upon the status of the entity being invoked. You still do not know who is right unless you ask why is the entity being invoked right. As such you are stuck in a 'might is right' morality and must use force and fear to get people to acquiesce. If we ask all the gods or the people that invoke these gods who is right how do you proceed to demonstrate that - what are the reasons for such a conclusion. If you do this then you are engaging in #2.

And the fact is you have not answered any questions you just asserted your god.

You have been found wanting more than once - here and elsewhere - but just can't see it because you are truly blind.

I suggest you seek to understand why non-zero sum games are important in realizing that cooperation is better off than otherwise and as such a logical and reasonable principle can be made from such truths. It is not necessarily true that someone must lose out in order for someone to gain - in fact cooperation can lead to both parties gaining more by cooperating than if they did not cooperate. Such a fact is the basis for why we have societies in the first place. As such this has deep evolutionary and social roots that have not just been biologically instantiated but socially logical and understandable to reasonable people. It is also why at a biological level there is a thing called division of labor - you should look into that as well instead of reading that ignorant ancient tribal trash and robbing yourself of a proper education - you might actually start to understand things a little better.