Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian Morals?

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 11:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems to me that Christian morals is a little arbitrary. Some claim that morality comes from God and is true simply because God exists, and for no other reason (It is right because God thinks so). If this is true then if God can changed is opinion on abortion, it would suddenly become morally right.

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality. This makes it subjective because it depends on God's opinion and so should not be followed because believing something because it is a person's arbitrary opinion is a fallacy. There is also the problem of why God is the one who gets to make up morality just from his arbitrary opinion. Why not me?

Some think that God merely discovers what is right and wrong though his mental powers (God think so because it is right). However, then morality is not based in God but is based in something else beside God, God only happens to be moral. Then morality could exist in a God-less universe. Of course if God is the definer of morality then at least we know what morality is (because God pointed it out) and do not have to seek it out if you were an atheist.

The next problem is that this God who defines morality is a monster. This guy is involved with slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, religious war, religious bigotry (extreme and light), sexism, etc. This guy has been caught contradicting himself and even changed his legal system from the law of Moses. He advocates a justice system that includes scape-goating and eternal torture for being imperfect. He also practices generational punishment. The morality of this God is monstrous. Everybody should hope this morality is not true.

This next problem is evidence. There is no evidence that this God who is our morality bringer exists. Philosophical, historical, scientific, and logical "arguments" for this person are easily refuted. Christianity is just one mythology among many that has survived the ancient world and is now in fashion making crazy claims about talking snakes, turning water into wine, snakes with legs, etc. This is just as laughable as Minerva being born from the brain of Zeus, and other fanciful tales. In the end, Christianity makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, putting it on the same level as bigfoot, flying spagetti monster, Zeus, etc. So the basis of Christian morality doesn't have much evidence making Christianity essentially baseless.

The last problem is the Christian's inability to provide evidence for objective morality.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 11:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am a christian and I agree
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:50:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 11:37:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am a christian and I agree

Are you still a Christian?
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 2:33:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 11:15:38 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
It seems to me that Christian morals is a little arbitrary. Some claim that morality comes from God and is true simply because God exists, and for no other reason (It is right because God thinks so). If this is true then if God can changed is opinion on abortion, it would suddenly become morally right.


This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality. This makes it subjective because it depends on God's opinion and so should not be followed because believing something because it is a person's arbitrary opinion is a fallacy. There is also the problem of why God is the one who gets to make up morality just from his arbitrary opinion. Why not me?

Some think that God merely discovers what is right and wrong though his mental powers (God think so because it is right). However, then morality is not based in God but is based in something else beside God, God only happens to be moral. Then morality could exist in a God-less universe. Of course if God is the definer of morality then at least we know what morality is (because God pointed it out) and do not have to seek it out if you were an atheist.

The next problem is that this God who defines morality is a monster. This guy is involved with slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, religious war, religious bigotry (extreme and light), sexism, etc. This guy has been caught contradicting himself and even changed his legal system from the law of Moses. He advocates a justice system that includes scape-goating and eternal torture for being imperfect. He also practices generational punishment. The morality of this God is monstrous. Everybody should hope this morality is not true.

This next problem is evidence. There is no evidence that this God who is our morality bringer exists. Philosophical, historical, scientific, and logical "arguments" for this person are easily refuted. Christianity is just one mythology among many that has survived the ancient world and is now in fashion making crazy claims about talking snakes, turning water into wine, snakes with legs, etc. This is just as laughable as Minerva being born from the brain of Zeus, and other fanciful tales. In the end, Christianity makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, putting it on the same level as bigfoot, flying spagetti monster, Zeus, etc. So the basis of Christian morality doesn't have much evidence making Christianity essentially baseless.

The last problem is the Christian's inability to provide evidence for objective morality.

Might want to adjust your thinking. How morality "seems" to you means it can be anything you want it to be. I know of no Christian Morality, is applied universally to all who claim to believe in the Christ. Your post inicates a preference for subjectivism.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:01:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is that this type of moral thinking isn't truly objective. It is also nonsensical from a philosophical standpoint.

Something can't be moral "just because". Parameters must be set. When people forget the purpose of their morality, it just becomes mindless obedience.

Morality is subjective, though it can and should be based on more external things.

Morality is entirely about working towards some type of positive effect while avoiding negative consequences. What is considered positive and negative is variable.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:04:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 5:01:20 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The problem is that this type of moral thinking isn't truly objective. It is also nonsensical from a philosophical standpoint.

Something can't be moral "just because". Parameters must be set. When people forget the purpose of their morality, it just becomes mindless obedience.

Morality is subjective, though it can and should be based on more external things.

Morality is entirely about working towards some type of positive effect while avoiding negative consequences. What is considered positive and negative is variable.

This is very true, but is also the reason that morality is universal. If the function of morality is to achieve a specific end, namely the betterment of life, then many moral principles should be common to all humans regardless of their civilization of origin. For example, murder has been considered taboo by every single human civilization in existence. (Whether or not this moral rule is enforced is another matter.)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:27:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 5:04:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/22/2011 5:01:20 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The problem is that this type of moral thinking isn't truly objective. It is also nonsensical from a philosophical standpoint.

Something can't be moral "just because". Parameters must be set. When people forget the purpose of their morality, it just becomes mindless obedience.

Morality is subjective, though it can and should be based on more external things.

Morality is entirely about working towards some type of positive effect while avoiding negative consequences. What is considered positive and negative is variable.

This is very true, but is also the reason that morality is universal. If the function of morality is to achieve a specific end, namely the betterment of life, then many moral principles should be common to all humans regardless of their civilization of origin. For example, murder has been considered taboo by every single human civilization in existence. (Whether or not this moral rule is enforced is another matter.)

No morality is universal, as the term is used? Heck, every country, and most people, condone Murder.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
People tend to want similar things, and we are all hardwired with the same emotions(more or less). The golden rule is like an attempt at fairness, a natural conclusion for someone who doesn't want to be fvcked with. It's a type of nonbinding and often poorly executed contract. "Look, I won't fvck with you, so don't fvck with me.".

When one side doesn't keep up what is perceived to be their end of the bargain, things can fall apart quickly.

Most moral systems are an organized attempt at stopping people from fvcking with eachother. The law of the government is a moral code. In fact, the word "god" is often translated out of words that can be equated with the government.

This is one reason why so much emphasis was put on the spirit of the law over the letter in early Christianity. This understanding is absent in most fundamentalists, which is why they make most rational people uncomfortable. They mistakenly believe that the old Jewish government is the same thing as the the "all in one" god. Many different words that mean different things are translated into "god" in the Christian bible.

I believe that these translations were likely done in this manner for political reasons, and it became such a part of culture that has stuck. Indeed, a great deal of tge word choice present in the original king james was political in nature. I'm not familiar with translations into other languages, but I'd imagine it to be present everywhere for similar reasons.

Now it is so ingrained in culture that it drastically perverts interpretation.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:49:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 5:29:45 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
People tend to want similar things, and we are all hardwired with the same emotions(more or less). The golden rule is like an attempt at fairness, a natural conclusion for someone who doesn't want to be fvcked with. It's a type of nonbinding and often poorly executed contract. "Look, I won't fvck with you, so don't fvck with me.".

When one side doesn't keep up what is perceived to be their end of the bargain, things can fall apart quickly.

Most moral systems are an organized attempt at stopping people from fvcking with eachother. The law of the government is a moral code. In fact, the word "god" is often translated out of words that can be equated with the government.

This is one reason why so much emphasis was put on the spirit of the law over the letter in early Christianity. This understanding is absent in most fundamentalists, which is why they make most rational people uncomfortable. They mistakenly believe that the old Jewish government is the same thing as the the "all in one" god. Many different words that mean different things are translated into "god" in the Christian bible.

I believe that these translations were likely done in this manner for political reasons, and it became such a part of culture that has stuck. Indeed, a great deal of tge word choice present in the original king james was political in nature. I'm not familiar with translations into other languages, but I'd imagine it to be present everywhere for similar reasons.

Now it is so ingrained in culture that it drastically perverts interpretation.

Hogwash. Peoples wants are dependent on their environment (sociology). Purely subjective.
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 8:05:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 11:15:38 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
It seems to me that Christian morals is a little arbitrary. Some claim that morality comes from God and is true simply because God exists, and for no other reason (It is right because God thinks so). If this is true then if God can changed is opinion on abortion, it would suddenly become morally right.

God will never change his opinion on abortion. God is all powerful (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6) and unchanging(Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8).

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality. This makes it subjective because it depends on God's opinion and so should not be followed because believing something because it is a person's arbitrary opinion is a fallacy. There is also the problem of why God is the one who gets to make up morality just from his arbitrary opinion. Why not me?

No reason to follow a God-defined morality? I would think that the supreme, omniscient (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14) being of the universe has a say in what happens in our lives. Secondly, I would be more inclined to follow said supreme being than someone with flawed logic. Plus, subjectivity is based on change; God doesn't change, therefore, morals created by God are always objective.

Some think that God merely discovers what is right and wrong though his mental powers (God think so because it is right). However, then morality is not based in God but is based in something else beside God, God only happens to be moral. Then morality could exist in a God-less universe. Of course if God is the definer of morality then at least we know what morality is (because God pointed it out) and do not have to seek it out if you were an atheist.

The problem with this argument lies in your lack of knowledge on the nature of God. God doesn't *discover* what is right or wrong, he decides what is right or wrong. God is good; however, God cannot sin. This would mean God would have to create a contradiction, which he cannot do (I'll explain this later, if needed). If morality could somehow exist in a God-less universe, it would certainly be subjective, as Atheists know the degree of this objective morality by observing the environment around them.

The next problem is that this God who defines morality is a monster. This guy is involved with slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, religious war, religious bigotry (extreme and light), sexism, etc. This guy has been caught contradicting himself and even changed his legal system from the law of Moses. He advocates a justice system that includes scape-goating and eternal torture for being imperfect. He also practices generational punishment. The morality of this God is monstrous. Everybody should hope this morality is not true.

That is your opinion; however, if God is all-knowing, he should know which outcome is best, correct? When we look at it from this angle, we can see some things that we don't agree with. Nonetheless, if morality is objective, then all this could be bad for you and good to me, could it not? In the end, God knows best therefore, God is true to the end; no matter how we see it.

This next problem is evidence. There is no evidence that this God who is our morality bringer exists. Philosophical, historical, scientific, and logical "arguments" for this person are easily refuted. Christianity is just one mythology among many that has survived the ancient world and is now in fashion making crazy claims about talking snakes, turning water into wine, snakes with legs, etc. This is just as laughable as Minerva being born from the brain of Zeus, and other fanciful tales. In the end, Christianity makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, putting it on the same level as bigfoot, flying spagetti monster, Zeus, etc. So the basis of Christian morality doesn't have much evidence making Christianity essentially baseless.

Zeus was grounded in cultural fallacy, flying spaghetti monster is satire, Bigfoot is merely speculation. God is god; you cannot change this simply by concluding the contrary. Even you know that there is more evidence for Yahweh than there is for Zeus; otherwise, the majority would still believe in Zeus.

The last problem is the Christian's inability to provide evidence for objective morality.

http://www.gotquestions.org...
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 8:09:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"if morality is subjective, then all this could be..."
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 8:33:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 8:09:17 AM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
"if morality is subjective, then all this could be..."

If you base you morality on your reading of the bible then it is subjectivism, not morality.
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 8:51:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 8:33:58 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/22/2011 8:09:17 AM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
"if morality is subjective, then all this could be..."

If you base you morality on your reading of the bible then it is subjectivism, not morality.

I was merely correcting myself from my previous post. If the Bible's morals are objective, then I am basing my morals on objectivity. The only way to prove your point, would be to prove the Bible's morals subjective. Good luck.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 9:43:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hogwash. Peoples wants are dependent on their environment (sociology). Purely subjective.

So let me get this straight... You dismiss my highly informative post based on the grounds that you mistakenly believe that I am saying something that claims something contrary to this?

When did I claim that wants are universal? I didn't. If you only read the first paragraph of my, you missed out on some true insight into the nature of biblical morality.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 9:53:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Dan4reason,

I had to waiting until the shaking stopped. I was so scared that you had something that would destroy Christianity!

Wait, that was a lie, does that mean I am not moral?

***
- Your claim that morality is objective simply because God thinks its right.

This is not the Christian claim. The claim is that morality is "what" God is. When we say it is a part of his nature, we understand that to be something that cannot be changed.
Like eating is a part of what we are to be human.
Morals find themselves within God as a part of his nature.

God moral character is intrinsic to His nature. It is based on objective truths within that nature.

***
- Accusations you made against God.
-Genocide
We as Americans have made similar decisions and would have destroyed the Japans to the last man.
We killed Men, women and children. 100,000's of thousands of innocents were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc.. Not to mention Nazi controlled firebombing of Dresden…

I could go on and on. We understand that times do call for the harm of innocents due to the sins of evil people.

-Slavery
This clearly was a free market solution to poverty. The last thing anyone has is their freedom of body to sell.
Have you read the Bible or just infidels.org?

-Bigotry
Dan, your hypocrisy is stunning. What and you are not a bigot? You daily allow the persecution of countless pedophiles just because they love children! You are an intolerant prick.

Of course, I am a bigot too. They should be wipped off the face of the earth. Regardless of the fact they disagree with we the intolerant bigots.

Do not put yourself on a moral high horse. You will only get knocked off.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:10:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 2:33:45 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/21/2011 11:15:38 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
It seems to me that Christian morals is a little arbitrary. Some claim that morality comes from God and is true simply because God exists, and for no other reason (It is right because God thinks so). If this is true then if God can changed is opinion on abortion, it would suddenly become morally right.


This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality. This makes it subjective because it depends on God's opinion and so should not be followed because believing something because it is a person's arbitrary opinion is a fallacy. There is also the problem of why God is the one who gets to make up morality just from his arbitrary opinion. Why not me?

Some think that God merely discovers what is right and wrong though his mental powers (God think so because it is right). However, then morality is not based in God but is based in something else beside God, God only happens to be moral. Then morality could exist in a God-less universe. Of course if God is the definer of morality then at least we know what morality is (because God pointed it out) and do not have to seek it out if you were an atheist.

The next problem is that this God who defines morality is a monster. This guy is involved with slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, religious war, religious bigotry (extreme and light), sexism, etc. This guy has been caught contradicting himself and even changed his legal system from the law of Moses. He advocates a justice system that includes scape-goating and eternal torture for being imperfect. He also practices generational punishment. The morality of this God is monstrous. Everybody should hope this morality is not true.

This next problem is evidence. There is no evidence that this God who is our morality bringer exists. Philosophical, historical, scientific, and logical "arguments" for this person are easily refuted. Christianity is just one mythology among many that has survived the ancient world and is now in fashion making crazy claims about talking snakes, turning water into wine, snakes with legs, etc. This is just as laughable as Minerva being born from the brain of Zeus, and other fanciful tales. In the end, Christianity makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, putting it on the same level as bigfoot, flying spagetti monster, Zeus, etc. So the basis of Christian morality doesn't have much evidence making Christianity essentially baseless.

The last problem is the Christian's inability to provide evidence for objective morality.


Might want to adjust your thinking. How morality "seems" to you means it can be anything you want it to be.

What part of my post are you responding to when you say this?

I know of no Christian Morality, is applied universally to all who claim to believe in the Christ.

I don't really understand what you are saying or what you are responding to when you make this statement? Are you saying that Christian morality is subjective?

Your post inicates a preference for subjectivism.

Sort of. I believe that morality is a product of our emotions. All notions of "better" or "worse" are manufactured by our emotional experience. However, the vast majority of human derive pleasure from being moral, so we might as well live our lives as if it was objective.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:28:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 9:53:41 AM, Gileandos wrote:
@Dan4reason,

I had to waiting until the shaking stopped. I was so scared that you had something that would destroy Christianity!

Wait, that was a lie, does that mean I am not moral?

***
- Your claim that morality is objective simply because God thinks its right.

This is not the Christian claim. The claim is that morality is "what" God is. When we say it is a part of his nature, we understand that to be something that cannot be changed.
Like eating is a part of what we are to be human.
Morals find themselves within God as a part of his nature.

God moral character is intrinsic to His nature. It is based on objective truths within that nature.

This still does not truly solve the problem. Let's assume that which you have stated: God has characteristics, one of which is that he is inherently moral. This compromises his nature in one of two ways. Either 1) he is all-good morally, but then this is because he must follow an already established moral code and cannot change from it in which case he is not omnipotent or 2) he is omnipotent, and even has his own power to break his own morality which means his morality is not inherently true making God not all-good. I'd like to know which one it is.

***
- Accusations you made against God.
-Genocide
We as Americans have made similar decisions and would have destroyed the Japans to the last man.
We killed Men, women and children. 100,000's of thousands of innocents were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc.. Not to mention Nazi controlled firebombing of Dresden…

I don't see the point here. Humans at times are not moral, of course. But the point only needs to be made that God cannot be the source of morality as Christians say morality exists. To say "HUMANS AREN'T MORAL" has nothing to do with God.


I could go on and on. We understand that times do call for the harm of innocents due to the sins of evil people.

-Slavery
This clearly was a free market solution to poverty. The last thing anyone has is their freedom of body to sell.
Have you read the Bible or just infidels.org?

-Bigotry
Dan, your hypocrisy is stunning. What and you are not a bigot? You daily allow the persecution of countless pedophiles just because they love children! You are an intolerant prick.

Of course, I am a bigot too. They should be wipped off the face of the earth. Regardless of the fact they disagree with we the intolerant bigots.

Do not put yourself on a moral high horse. You will only get knocked off.

We don't need to. Again, we can accept humans have the capacity to not be moral. Does this affect an argument that God is not? No. This is such a fallacy.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:30:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't even understand all this ATHEIST MORALS vs CHRISTIAN MORALS thread crap.

Accept this: morality does not inherently exist. That is simply fact. As much as I hate to quote Cosmic, his "window" analogy holds most true here. Morality is humans trying to place their own order on a system that can exist without it. Morality is totally subjective, and can only be established as a social contract between entities.

You guys haven't even properly defined "morality" to have a good measure of whether Atheism or Christianity has reached. Not only is morality subjective in how it exists, but in how we define it.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:47:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 8:05:57 AM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
At 12/21/2011 11:15:38 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
It seems to me that Christian morals is a little arbitrary. Some claim that morality comes from God and is true simply because God exists, and for no other reason (It is right because God thinks so). If this is true then if God can changed is opinion on abortion, it would suddenly become morally right.

God will never change his opinion on abortion. God is all powerful (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6) and unchanging(Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8).

The point I was trying to make is that if morality is based on someone's opinion, then it is not objective. You are only fortunate that God does not change his opinion. Lets say that I decided that sushi was good tasting and I never change my mind about anything. Even though I never change my mind, my opinion that sushi is good tasting is still subjective and arbitrary.

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality. This makes it subjective because it depends on God's opinion and so should not be followed because believing something because it is a person's arbitrary opinion is a fallacy. There is also the problem of why God is the one who gets to make up morality just from his arbitrary opinion. Why not me?

No reason to follow a God-defined morality? I would think that the supreme, omniscient (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14) being of the universe has a say in what happens in our lives. Secondly, I would be more inclined to follow said supreme being than someone with flawed logic.

God can be as smart as he wants but if he made up morality arbitrarily, it is just as rational as if a dumb person made up morality arbitrarily, because both moralities are still arbitrary. So there is no special reason why he should be the one to decide what is right or wrong.

Plus, subjectivity is based on change; God doesn't change, therefore, morals created by God are always objective.

Wrong. Something can be subjective and not change. See my sushi example. Something that is subjective is something that depends on a person's opinion. Maybe that person's opinion will never change but it is still subjective. So God's morality is still subjective.

Some think that God merely discovers what is right and wrong though his mental powers (God think so because it is right). However, then morality is not based in God but is based in something else beside God, God only happens to be moral. Then morality could exist in a God-less universe. Of course if God is the definer of morality then at least we know what morality is (because God pointed it out) and do not have to seek it out if you were an atheist.

The problem with this argument lies in your lack of knowledge on the nature of God. God doesn't *discover* what is right or wrong, he decides what is right or wrong. God is good; however, God cannot sin. This would mean God would have to create a contradiction, which he cannot do (I'll explain this later, if needed). If morality could somehow exist in a God-less universe, it would certainly be subjective, as Atheists know the degree of this objective morality by observing the environment around them.

Ok, so you think something is right because God thinks so, not that God thinks so because something is right. Good to know.

The next problem is that this God who defines morality is a monster. This guy is involved with slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, religious war, religious bigotry (extreme and light), sexism, etc. This guy has been caught contradicting himself and even changed his legal system from the law of Moses. He advocates a justice system that includes scape-goating and eternal torture for being imperfect. He also practices generational punishment. The morality of this God is monstrous. Everybody should hope this morality is not true.

That is your opinion; however, if God is all-knowing, he should know which outcome is best, correct? When we look at it from this angle, we can see some things that we don't agree with. Nonetheless, if morality is objective, then all this could be bad for you and good to me, could it not? In the end, God knows best therefore, God is true to the end; no matter how we see it.

How can God know best if he came up with his morality arbitrarily? Why should I follow an arbitrary moral system? If the only basis of this moral system is someone's arbitrary opinion, then it is illogical to follow. This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

This next problem is evidence. There is no evidence that this God who is our morality bringer exists. Philosophical, historical, scientific, and logical "arguments" for this person are easily refuted. Christianity is just one mythology among many that has survived the ancient world and is now in fashion making crazy claims about talking snakes, turning water into wine, snakes with legs, etc. This is just as laughable as Minerva being born from the brain of Zeus, and other fanciful tales. In the end, Christianity makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, putting it on the same level as bigfoot, flying spagetti monster, Zeus, etc. So the basis of Christian morality doesn't have much evidence making Christianity essentially baseless.

Zeus was grounded in cultural fallacy, flying spaghetti monster is satire, Bigfoot is merely speculation. God is god; you cannot change this simply by concluding the contrary. Even you know that there is more evidence for Yahweh than there is for Zeus; otherwise, the majority would still believe in Zeus.

The idea of God is still a mythology among many based on no evidence. So your morality is groundless. Sorry.

The last problem is the Christian's inability to provide evidence for objective morality.

http://www.gotquestions.org...

That link did not present any evidence for objective morality. Sorry.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:54:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no shame in quoting me. While my views are not common, I am right most of tthe time. Most just don't put in the effort to understand what I'm saying. They just assume I'm crazy. This intentional on my part. It helps me sort the pseudo-intellectuals from the geuinely inquisitive. Anyone who has an understanding of the subjects I speak of realizes that I'm not just blowing smoke.

If I am being arrogant, it is only because I remain unchallenged.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:57:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 11:54:08 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is no shame in quoting me. While my views are not common, I am right most of tthe time. Most just don't put in the effort to understand what I'm saying. They just assume I'm crazy. This intentional on my part. It helps me sort the pseudo-intellectuals from the geuinely inquisitive. Anyone who has an understanding of the subjects I speak of realizes that I'm not just blowing smoke.

If I am being arrogant, it is only because I remain unchallenged.

I think you have a lot of interesting things to say Cosmic, and a lot of your ideas make sense. The presentation is a little lacking in some cases though - that's the only fault I see. I also think your resulting worldview is sometimes off base, but after all, I think we can agree in the end it's all just a choice of how we wish to act, right?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dan4Reason said:

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality.

Thats absurd. God needs to have evidence for his moral beliefs? Hes God, he created the laws of the Universe. I dont think he needs to dig up evidence to justify his moral beliefs to himself and others.

Also, thats not a good reason to say morality is arbitrary under the theistic worldview. In most monotheistic doctrines, God is the source of morality and absolutes. Its not just his whims. Hes omniscient so he already knows the moral laws of the Universe.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 12:22:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Dan4Reason said:

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality.

Thats absurd. God needs to have evidence for his moral beliefs? Hes God, he created the laws of the Universe. I dont think he needs to dig up evidence to justify his moral beliefs to himself and others.

Also, thats not a good reason to say morality is arbitrary under the theistic worldview. In most monotheistic doctrines, God is the source of morality and absolutes. Its not just his whims. Hes omniscient so he already knows the moral laws of the Universe.

So then moral absolutes would NOT stem from him, but from knowing what the already existing moral absolutes are.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 12:28:20 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/22/2011 12:22:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Dan4Reason said:

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality.

Thats absurd. God needs to have evidence for his moral beliefs? Hes God, he created the laws of the Universe. I dont think he needs to dig up evidence to justify his moral beliefs to himself and others.

Also, thats not a good reason to say morality is arbitrary under the theistic worldview. In most monotheistic doctrines, God is the source of morality and absolutes. Its not just his whims. Hes omniscient so he already knows the moral laws of the Universe.

So then moral absolutes would NOT stem from him, but from knowing what the already existing moral absolutes are.

I'm talking about the ontological source of morality. God is the source of everything, and yet he also knows about everything including morality.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 12:22:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Dan4Reason said:

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality.

Thats absurd. God needs to have evidence for his moral beliefs? Hes God, he created the laws of the Universe. I dont think he needs to dig up evidence to justify his moral beliefs to himself and others.

Also, thats not a good reason to say morality is arbitrary under the theistic worldview. In most monotheistic doctrines, God is the source of morality and absolutes. Its not just his whims. Hes omniscient so he already knows the moral laws of the Universe.




.
.

This implies that morality is separate from God. The Book of Genesis confirms this idea; God first acts and then "sees" that the action was good/bad afterwards. This means that there is an objective source of morality outside of God.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:56:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 11:30:40 AM, M.Torres wrote:
I don't even understand all this ATHEIST MORALS vs CHRISTIAN MORALS thread crap.

Accept this: morality does not inherently exist. That is simply fact. As much as I hate to quote Cosmic, his "window" analogy holds most true here. Morality is humans trying to place their own order on a system that can exist without it. Morality is totally subjective, and can only be established as a social contract between entities.

You guys haven't even properly defined "morality" to have a good measure of whether Atheism or Christianity has reached. Not only is morality subjective in how it exists, but in how we define it.

How can you sit here and act like moral realism is blatantly false with giving little to no reason at all for believing such a proposition.

"Most philosophers today accept or lean towards moral realism, as do most meta-ethicists, and twice as many philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism [than moral anti-realism]."
-- Wikipedia

So most of the philosophers, people who spend their whole life thinking about about philosophy concluded that moral realism is true.

Obviously this fact doesn't make moral realism true, but it just goes to show you can't just sit there and act like moral realism is obviously false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 12:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 9:53:41 AM, Gileandos wrote:
- Your claim that morality is objective simply because God thinks its right.

This is not the Christian claim. The claim is that morality is "what" God is. When we say it is a part of his nature, we understand that to be something that cannot be changed.
Like eating is a part of what we are to be human.
Morals find themselves within God as a part of his nature.

God moral character is intrinsic to His nature. It is based on objective truths within that nature.

I am not really sure what you are saying. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? It seems you are agreeing with the former. I just want to be sure.

***
- Accusations you made against God.
-Genocide
We as Americans have made similar decisions and would have destroyed the Japans to the last man.
We killed Men, women and children. 100,000's of thousands of innocents were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc.. Not to mention Nazi controlled firebombing of Dresden…

I could go on and on. We understand that times do call for the harm of innocents due to the sins of evil people.

Actually I disagree with the fire-bombing of innocents. Waging war against civilians is terrorism. Today, we target soldiers not civilians.

-Slavery
This clearly was a free market solution to poverty. The last thing anyone has is their freedom of body to sell.
Have you read the Bible or just infidels.org?

I am sure the Confederates would agree with you. There is a clear refutation to this argument. Why not allow people to work for pay, instead of being forced to work? Another issue is that many slaves were prisoners of war.

-Bigotry
Dan, your hypocrisy is stunning. What and you are not a bigot? You daily allow the persecution of countless pedophiles just because they love children! You are an intolerant prick.

Of course, I am a bigot too. They should be wipped off the face of the earth. Regardless of the fact they disagree with we the intolerant bigots.

Do not put yourself on a moral high horse. You will only get knocked off.

I see. So having a different belief than you is comparable to paedophilia?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
New International Version (NIV)

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

The evil things in the bible does not disprove Christian morality. However, it does reduce our desire to want biblical morality to be true. I would prefer secular morality to biblical morality any-time.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Stephen Weinberg

Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.
-Bill Maher
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 1:01:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 12:22:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Dan4Reason said:

This morality is arbitrary because God does not base his opinion on evidence, so there is no reason to follow God-defined morality.

Thats absurd. God needs to have evidence for his moral beliefs? Hes God, he created the laws of the Universe. I dont think he needs to dig up evidence to justify his moral beliefs to himself and others.

Also, thats not a good reason to say morality is arbitrary under the theistic worldview. In most monotheistic doctrines, God is the source of morality and absolutes. Its not just his whims. Hes omniscient so he already knows the moral laws of the Universe.

I am not saying he needs to present us with the evidence. All I am saying that I just want to know that God got this morality from somewhere and didn't just make it up.

So I have one question for you: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 1:01:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Desired result = good
Undesired result = bad

The Hindu understanding of karma is accurate in that all actions cause positive and negative consequences.

However, the measure that is used effects what is considered positive and negative. At best, morality can be objective from a relative standpoint.

Simply saying something is "bad" is nonsensical. Bad for what? Morality is not something that exists on its own. It is a memeplex, a grid defined by both culture and observations of the real world. If we are to go simply by "cause God said so", morality could really only be manifest in the physical laws of the universe. This hardly resembles the morality that most people think of as being that.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp