Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (bible, quote, Christianity)
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.
In any event, the OP's original post stating that God was immoral is ridiculous, and has yet to be substantiated by him or by ANYONE on this thread.
And THIS kind of thing only reinforces my previous post.
You really can't see anything wrong with what God did - or ordered others to do in his name. You really do think that the genocides, the murdering of innocents, slaughtering babies, the animal cruelty, the human sacrifices, the wars of aggression, the psychological torture ... it's all just peachy keen in your eyes, and I'm not all that convinced that you feel that way ONLY because it was God. Nope, not any more.
In my opinion, this thread has taken a rather disconcerting direction. Not a great thing to see in the middle of the night, alone, in an isolated town far, far away from anything resembling a police station or sheriff's office.
Ick.
I need to go find a movie to watch, with lots of color, fluffy kittens, cheery music, and hap-hap-happy smiles!
If you don't believe that God exists, then the human race is morally bankrupt. No one can say ANYTHING is immoral.
You hit the mark with this post.
We are all as a human race morally bankrupt.
Not one human in there entire life could hope to tip the scale. By even mentioning morality without God is immorality. Because without the pendulum to hold the scale it is all the same. What hardwired us to separate the two. Call it what you will instinct, intuition,. But that feeling you get when you do something bad is your spirit dying.
You hit the mark with this post.
We are all as a human race morally bankrupt.
Not one human in there entire life could hope to tip the scale. By even mentioning morality without God is immorality. Because without the pendulum to hold the scale it is all the same. What hardwired us to separate the two. Call it what you will instinct, intuition,. But that feeling you get when you do something bad is your spirit dying.
Wow, the hubris.
As if there was no such thing as morality before the advent of Christianity - or that there is no morality in non-Christian nations.
And this ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled
By even mentioning morality without God is immorality.
Well, suffice it to say that if I had had anything in my stomach while reading that line, it would currently be all over my keyboard.
Now I get it, though. A big-assed lightbulb (flourescent now instead of the traditional incandescent) just blinked on over my head.
I can understand now why a world without religion might NOT be such a good idea. Mmhmm. Yeah.
Because I'm beginning to wonder - if religion ceased to exist tomorrow - just how many former Christians would take to the streets, committing all kinds of heinous acts of brutality and barbarism seemingly against their will. It makes me wonder just how many people, without their religion, would simply say, "Who cares about anything or anyone? Without a god to be accountable to, why NOT just kill and rape and take what I want? Yeah!!"
Perhaps we really need religion to keep these kinds of people in check.
Because it's obvious to this author that empathy, compassion, kindness, and charity aren't good enough for their own sake. No, without that god-accountability, the actual person doesn't matter. Which is why murder and rape would suddenly be okay in their eyes. The person is irrelevant, meaningless. Only that big bad Police Detective in the Sky matters.
Still waiting for you to explain how subjective morality based on opinion is a reasonable way to state objectively that something is immoral.
Why would you be waiting for me to explain a position I NEVER held. I never once said we can "state objectively" what is moral or immoral. What I said is that our moral discourse is constrained by objective facts.
What is this desperate need you have in your MO to reply to only the things each user has never actually said? Do you think you are convincing anyone but your self of anything by doing this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius
Both view's 2 + 2 apples = 4 and 2 + 2 apples = 100 are subject of whomever because they are views which are, as we know individually communicated understandings.
Not really. We have very fixed axioms in mathematics. So 2+2=4 and 2+2=100 are not subjectively equal in any sense whatsoever. Not even a little bit. The latter is merely a demonstration of a lack of understanding, or an outright rejection, of the axioms of the language.
This is not the same as, or even remotely relevant to, the point I was making about how moral discourse works.
I am curious, not a slight just an inquiry, is English your first language?
Why would you be waiting for me to explain a position I NEVER held. I never once said we can "state objectively" what is moral or immoral. What I said is that our moral discourse is constrained by objective facts.
What is this desperate need you have in your MO to reply to only the things each user has never actually said? Do you think you are convincing anyone but your self of anything by doing this?
Not really. We have very fixed axioms in mathematics. So 2+2=4 and 2+2=100 are not subjectively equal in any sense whatsoever. Not even a little bit. The latter is merely a demonstration of a lack of understanding, or an outright rejection, of the axioms of the language.
This is not the same as, or even remotely relevant to, the point I was making about how moral discourse works.
I am curious, not a slight just an inquiry, is English your first language?
What ?
As expected answer makes no sence at all and has nothing to do with the simple explanation. I guess to avoid the nonsense I should of said, This bunch of apples + That bunch of apples, is that it , or would there be something else ?
Last edited by Sophronius; 10-16-2014 at 03:12 AM..
What is making no sense is your sentences, which is why I asked if it was your first language. The entire post above, except for your comment about things not making sense, is meaningless to me. I know all the words in the sentence, even the misspelled ones, but put together like that they simply mean nothing to me. I honestly have no idea whatsoever what you are saying above.
Oh, indeed. The level of hubris, among members of certain sects, is jaw-dropping stuff. It's what leads people like John Lennon, who have also seen the hubris (and what it leads to) to write things like:
"...And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"
Of course most of those those hubris-filled believers hate John Lennon. (Their loss.)
10-16-2014, 10:57 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Human actions are Objective, your perception of those actions is Subjective.
Yep I agree!
Saying human actions are objective is not the same as saying morality is objective - as you have said. We as humans moralize those human actions and as such morality comes under the perception of those actions. Ergo morality is subjective. I said morality was about human actions (how we perceive them) not that morality is human actions.
Now whether those actions can be understood universally as right or wrong, in regard to their effect, is another question, which by the way I believe they can be, but that does not mean that morality is objective particularly in the sense that Vizio and other theists are using that term. Moral values are our individual valuation of those actions.
And I have given Vizio the reasons why we can say that certain actions are wrong or right - reasons that help us reduce subjectivity. That is the only type of objectivity we have in evaluating these actions and their effects. As such these methodologies inform us as to why these actions are wrong or right given what we know about humans in every respect from biology to psychology.
Vizio just does not like those answers and has said nothing to refute them - nothing. Your objectivity is a different objectivity that what Vizio is arguing for.
What is making no sense is your sentences, which is why I asked if it was your first language. The entire post above, except for your comment about things not making sense, is meaningless to me. I know all the words in the sentence, even the misspelled ones, but put together like that they simply mean nothing to me. I honestly have no idea whatsoever what you are saying above.
That's fine, it happens.. after checking the exact definition of the word axiom your entry made no sense either. So I changed it to , bunchs of apples in attention to what I could only guess was being referred to , it seems there is a difference of understanding with respects to what counting and arithmatic represents, a common thing. No big deal another topic.
Last edited by Sophronius; 10-17-2014 at 12:03 AM..
"Good"? How so? In what way?
"Harm"? Please define "harm"...objectively and categorically.
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.
