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.
Are you suggesting that God has opinions? Why would anything God say or think be an opinion? Isn't everything he does irrefutably correct? If so, then God doesn't have opinions just facts and absolute (i.e. tyrannical) rules.
We've told you again and again why morality based on consensus is not only the best way but the only viable way to define what is or isn't moral.
For the UMPTEENTH TIME.............why? Can you explain WHY it's the best and only viable way?
As of now...all we've got is your opinion, which you've given no attempt to defend. It's almost laughable. I keep pointing out that all you've done is make statements, say they're true, and give no defense for them.
Morality is Objective. Morality does remain constant. It is your perception of Morality that continually changes.
Our perception of morality ... IS morality. There is nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
In order to get you to change your perception, I need only to present a slickly produced infomercial and convince you that you derive some personal benefit.
All perceptions are not created equal. Perceptions of morality are far harder to change than an opinion about a $19.99 widget someone is selling on late-night television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Society is a construct of humanity, just like gods.
Only the details are constructed by humanity. Society itself is an evolved trait that is as essential to our survival as eating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
At the end of the day, Morality can be reduced to Binary Code: 0s and 1s.
No, not really. To me, the error in your premise is almost sophomoric (no offense). Is killing universally wrong? How about murder?
Well, why don't we ask a coalition soldier fighting in Iraq if he thought killing an "insurgent" was a moral act. Then let's ask the family of the "insurgent" who was killed and see if they thought the killing was moral. What do you think is going to happen here? Do you think that both soldier and Iraqi are going to end up agreeing with each other's morality, shaking hands, and expressing brotherly love?
Each of those people are going to have widely varying takes on morality - their perceptions of the act will be wildly different. There is nothing "objective" about a situation like this because both soldier and insurgent were right ... and they were both wrong. It depends on which side of the line you're standing on.
There is no such thing an an objective morality because no one is qualified to decide what is 100% always and forevermore immoral and what is not. And how could we possibly know what this "objective" moral stance happens to be? What you're proposing is essentially an impossibility - that without a god, some third-party law-giver TELLING humanity was is objectively moral, we still have objective morality that comes from ... I dunnae. Somewhere, I guess. But we'll never know what it is and we wouldn't recognize it even if we stumbled across it, making the entire premise academic at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
0 is 0 and it never changes, just like 1 is 1 and never changes. The Sun still rises.
You cannot compare math and science to human behavior. We aren't computer programs running a binary program. Why do you think that sociology and psychology are not considered sciences? The number "1" is an empircal value that can be demonstrably proven. By all means, please give me an example of a moral precept that is 100% objective - one that has remained unaltered throughout human history. One that can be demonstrably proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is Social Custom, which has nothing to do with Morality.
Now you're just moving the goal posts around, trying to redefine things on the fly in an effort to knock my points aside. Nope, I'm not biting. Morality usually creates social customs. Saying one has nothing to do with the other is akin to saying car factories have nothing to do with cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Society has no authority to say anything.
Oh really? Then who or what does? I'll wait right here for the answer.
By the way, can I ask what you will do the next time you're pulled over by a cop? Are you going to keep right on driving because "society has no authority to say anything"? Or will you pull over just to inform the officer that the authority he has been granted by society is null and void ... and then pull away? Perhaps you should begin advocating the release of all of our prisoners given that they've been locked away by the State (otherwise known as The People) which is otherwise known as ... society. Then we can abolish all laws and live in an anarchy spawned by society having no authority.
Oh, but wait ... we can adhere to objective morality, you say? Okay then. What exactly is it? And why should we take YOUR word for it? You would essentially be setting yourself up as another Moses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The Society-god you worship is no different than Yahweh-god.
This comment is just plain stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why - but such an accusation is an acute sign of your argument running out of steam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No, slavery was always immoral. People merely deluded themselves with a series of rationalizations to convince themselves it was just and proper, mostly because they benefited personally.
Slavery was always immoral according to who? Which council, executive body, political group, government, or global election cemented into place the idea that morality was ALWAYS immoral? Which god or religion, Mircea? Who or what set up this rubrick at the dawn of humanity that claimed slavery is henceforth always immoral ... and who enforces this decree? Celestial policemen? Angels? Aliens from Zeta Reticuli?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is Self-Defense, which is not theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is Self-Defense, which is not theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
When you take the life of another in Self-Defense, that is not murder.
Ahh, I see. So ... we can claim that murder is objectively immoral. EXCEPT when murder happens for specific reasons or under specific circumstances. At that point, we merely redefine murder and call it something else: War, Self Defense, Justifiable Homicide, Assisted Suicide, Collateral Damage, Acceptable Losses, Justice. In other words, in order to escape the reality that morality is not objective, we divide and sub-divide "murder" into various categories to make those things ... not murder.
Morality is really just a big game of semantics, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You allege they are permissible and claim Society-god "said so" only to assuage your own guilt; to avoid accepting any responsibility; to hide the fact that you were too weak to act; and a host of other reasons, all of which benefit you personally.
Hiding in your temple dedicated to Society-god makes you nothing more than a priestess. I'll bet you even preach Global Warming as the Apocalypse as revealed to you in a vision by the IPCC.
Demonstrating...
Wow, really? This is one of those times when I had to double check to make sure I was reading correctly. Sadly, yes ... yes, you really did write those things. I mean, holy sh ... crap! Are you feeling okay? When was the last time you've visited a doctor?
Because, seriously, what you wrote was just plain bizarre - and makes about as much sense as most translations you can get from Babelfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Mircea
At least you were brave enough to sign your name to this train wreck. I'll give you points for ballsyness.
For the UMPTEENTH TIME.............why? Can you explain WHY it's the best and only viable way?
As of now...all we've got is your opinion, which you've given no attempt to defend. It's almost laughable. I keep pointing out that all you've done is make statements, say they're true, and give no defense for them.
CAN you defend your argument?
Defend yours, Vizio.
Why don't you bring your God out onto the stage and show us that he exists. Show us that we should accept the Bible as your God's mouthpiece and revere it as the first and last word on morality.
Go on, haul his divine butt out here where we can see him.
Oh you can't? Well then, it looks like all we have is your opinion to go on. It's your opinion that God exists. It's your opinion that the Bible is the Truth. It's your opinion that God's laws are objective. It's your opinion that the world would be morally bankrupt without God.
Opinion.
Opinion.
Opinion.
Because, no, Vizio, you do NOT get to argue from the vantage of assuming God exists - which is what you're doing. You might believe with all your heart that God exists. But ... that's just your opinion. It isn't mine.
Now it's YOUR turn to defend yourself. Your position is NOT the default position, Vizio. Your stance is not automatically right if we can't prove (to YOUR satisfaction) that morality is not objective. Ignoring our posts and repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't win you any kudo points. In act, in a formal debate, you would be accumulating truck loads of negative points.
Why don't you bring your God out onto the stage and show us that he exists. Show us that we should accept the Bible as your God's mouthpiece and revere it as the first and last word on morality.
Go on, haul his divine butt out here where we can see him.
Oh you can't? Well then, it looks like all we have is your opinion to go on. It's your opinion that God exists. It's your opinion that the Bible is the Truth. It's your opinion that God's laws are objective. It's your opinion that the world would be morally bankrupt without God.
Opinion.
Opinion.
Opinion.
Because, no, Vizio, you do NOT get to argue from the vantage of assuming God exists - which is what you're doing. You might believe with all your heart that God exists. But ... that's just your opinion. It isn't mine.
Now it's YOUR turn to defend yourself. Your position is NOT the default position, Vizio. Your stance is not automatically right if we can't prove (to YOUR satisfaction) that morality is not objective. Ignoring our posts and repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't win you any kudo points. In act, in a formal debate, you would be accumulating truck loads of negative points.
Right after you explain to me why your system of consensus is the best. CAN YOU? Or are you just a bunch of hot air? Once again--this thread is about the OP's statement that God is immoral. I'm positing that human beings can't EVEN judge morality. I'm still waiting for you to explain your OPINION otherwise.
Right after you explain to me why your system of consensus is the best.
No.
I've explained it multiple times. For instance, one of the reasons why consensus works best is because YOUR system would require an oppressive theocratic regime that does not represent the most people possible within our society. There, that's one reason.
Now it's your turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Or are you just a bunch of hot air?
All I can say about that is - all you do is repeat yourself without acknowledging what others are saying. If you keep this up, you'll have spewed enough meaningless hot air to literally solve the heat loss problem within the universe, extending its lifespan by at least a few trillion years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Once again--this thread is about the OP's statement that God is immoral.
Yep. Because he is immoral. Period. Almost everyone in the world would agree with me if anyone other than God had committed those actions. I have consensus on my side - and since there is no god to interfere, it means I win. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm positing that human beings can't EVEN judge morality.
And I'm positing that you're full of it.
If humans are incapable of judging morality, then how can you judge God to be good, moral, and just?
If we're incapable of judging morality, then we really have no idea if the morality God offers is actually moral - because we really don't know if GOD is moral. Because we're incapable of judging it.
I wonder if this is the kind of logic a dog uses to justify chasing its own tail ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm still waiting for you to explain your OPINION otherwise.
Nope. The floor ALL yours. Let's hear all of the objective, empirical evidence for the existence of your God and why the Bible (as opposed to a plethora of other holy books) is the only true and correct path to morality.
I'll go get the popcorn ... and a copy of the entire internet since I suspect I'll get done reading every webpage in existence before I get you to defend your own OPINION on the matter.
I've explained it multiple times. For instance, one of the reasons why consensus works best is because YOUR system would require an oppressive theocratic regime that does not represent the most people possible within our society. There, that's one reason.
Now it's your turn.
Sorry...you're simply saying mine is wrong. I have yet to see why your's is right. CAN you do that? Or are you just a broken record, hoping no one will notice you have no argument?
Sorry...you're simply saying mine is wrong. I have yet to see why your's is right. CAN you do that? Or are you just a broken record, hoping no one will notice you have no argument?
Why are you trying to hijack this thread? This is about the fact that the atheist point of view on morality cannot judge God or anyone else.
LOL! Damn ... you need to go back and re-read the OP's original thread.
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.
