Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

If everything is allowed without God...

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 1:24:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

That is traditionally what the conclusion is when you abdicate personal understanding and your own common sense for what you think a nebulous entity wants of you.

All the authority, none of the responsibility. Pretty neat trick, if you can look yourself in the mirror each day for it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 1:39:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 1:24:02 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

That is traditionally what the conclusion is when you abdicate personal understanding and your own common sense for what you think a nebulous entity wants of you.

True.

Person A: I won't kill that man because I could understand what a lifelong tragedy and misery I would inflict on everyone of his family and friends, and how I don't have the rights to take away anyone's life.

Person B: I won't kill that man because...God tells me not to.

It's quite obvious who the most compassionate one here is.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:29:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable." - Benito Mussolini
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:34:01 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:29:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable." - Benito Mussolini
The religious love their demented dictators don't they? LMFAO
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 3:15:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

The law is written in our hearts. Do we want another to sleep with our partner? Why then would we commit adultery with another? Do we want others to steal from us? Why then would we steal from others? Do we want another to kill or harm ourselves or loved ones? Why then would we kill or harm another, etc, etc.

If we cannot live by the law that we ourselves impose on the society around us, then what are we other than a mob of degenerate hypocrites.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 3:19:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

I agree and if I had to guess I think the OP would too, but that's not the point. The OP is pointing out what believers try to saddle non believers with (i.e. there is no morality without god), then they believe god is the only thing that keeps them from psychopathy.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 3:20:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

How does one reach this asinine conclusion?
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 3:26:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 3:15:11 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

The law is written in our hearts. Do we want another to sleep with our partner? Why then would we commit adultery with another? Do we want others to steal from us? Why then would we steal from others? Do we want another to kill or harm ourselves or loved ones? Why then would we kill or harm another, etc, etc.

If we cannot live by the law that we ourselves impose on the society around us, then what are we other than a mob of degenerate hypocrites.
I quite agree.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 4:08:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

Moreover:
1) "I would not care for the hurt I caused others were I not terrified of brutally disproportionate punishment";
2) "I would not sacrifice to help others, save for my greed for ludicrously incommensurate reward";
3) "I could not work out for myself not to kill, lie, or steal were it not written down and pounded into me once a week throughout my childhood and young adulthood";
4) "It takes an horrific story of brutality, torture and execution before I can forgive anyone anything".

That's the person religion thinks you are? That's the way you'd like to be patronised and manipulated for the whole of your life?

You were born better than that, and born to deserve better.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 12:08:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 3:20:51 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

How does one reach this asinine conclusion?

With the origin of objective morality removed, and the apparent disdain for which the theist holds the atheist, its the only logical conclusion.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 3:19:43 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

I agree and if I had to guess I think the OP would too, but that's not the point. The OP is pointing out what believers try to saddle non believers with (i.e. there is no morality without god), then they believe god is the only thing that keeps them from psychopathy.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator. Not that humans in general without a god would never develop a moral code.

Personally I have always found the argument a little weak (even despite the gross evil in the world), to say that we wouldn't develop morality without God, but I don't think that is what is intended, could be wrong though...

But then again... maybe we would have killed everyone off without God hangin around pulling the reigns back lol, who knows...
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:38:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/2/2016 3:19:43 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

I agree and if I had to guess I think the OP would too, but that's not the point. The OP is pointing out what believers try to saddle non believers with (i.e. there is no morality without god), then they believe god is the only thing that keeps them from psychopathy.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator. Not that humans in general without a god would never develop a moral code.

Personally I have always found the argument a little weak (even despite the gross evil in the world), to say that we wouldn't develop morality without God, but I don't think that is what is intended, could be wrong though...

But then again... maybe we would have killed everyone off without God hangin around pulling the reigns back lol, who knows...
If you read his authorised biography you'll find that the god character in that is responsible for every death that ever happened, he don't seem to be doing anything to help at all.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:45:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:47:30 AM, Jovian wrote:
...in your world, isn't this saying more things about yourself, rather than atheists? Maybe you should rephrase it to "I would kill everyone in my vicinity if my God was proven to not exist"?

Yeah, this is a general misunderstanding. The Theist isn't saying if God does not exist we're then gonna kill everyone lol.
God does not "teach" morals, He expands them when we apply spirituality. Meaning we simply improve ourselves by eliminating the obstacles that hinder full maximum movement of Godly qualities through the principle of selflessness, whereas maybe in the natural carnal mind there is no motivation to expand ourselves to what we are truly capable of. To expand that quality which was previously leveled at.
Love, does no wrong and has no ill intentions. God is love, and we must operate in that full time, not just some of the times. These things, is what we argue are from God, it's the "moral backdrop".
Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 4:00:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 12:08:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

With the origin of objective morality removed, and the apparent disdain for which the theist holds the atheist, its the only logical conclusion.

To think that over half the world population are actually psychopaths that would kill without remorse due to a change in beliefs is ridiculous.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 4:00:46 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/2/2016 12:08:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

With the origin of objective morality removed, and the apparent disdain for which the theist holds the atheist, its the only logical conclusion.

To think that over half the world population are actually psychopaths that would kill without remorse due to a change in beliefs is ridiculous.
You are so right and yet that is the claim made by most of the theists on this site.
Go figure.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 3:15:11 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

The law is written in our hearts. Do we want another to sleep with our partner? Why then would we commit adultery with another? Do we want others to steal from us? Why then would we steal from others? Do we want another to kill or harm ourselves or loved ones? Why then would we kill or harm another, etc, etc.

If we cannot live by the law that we ourselves impose on the society around us, then what are we other than a mob of degenerate hypocrites.

that is empathy, and compassion, most social animals also have those traits
if someone needs a god or a book to tell them not to kill other people, then they have no morals of their own.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 8:21:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/2/2016 3:19:43 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:47:51 AM, Casten wrote:
I don't want to believe that the Christians I know would become cruel maniacs if they were somehow confronted with proof of God's absence. I think they are better people than that, and that the suffering of others would still bother them. I may not have faith in God, but I have faith in them, I guess.

I agree and if I had to guess I think the OP would too, but that's not the point. The OP is pointing out what believers try to saddle non believers with (i.e. there is no morality without god), then they believe god is the only thing that keeps them from psychopathy.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.

It is not an exaggeration.

Not that humans in general without a god would never develop a moral code.

This seems to be your own belief (I appreciate your open-mindedness), but this is not inline with the assertions of those claiming "everywhere atheists get in charge the place turns into a hellhole" (suggesting a lack of morals), or "they r atheists they dont have any laws written in stone, everything goes". There are more, but I think you get the point.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Personally I have always found the argument a little weak (even despite the gross evil in the world), to say that we wouldn't develop morality without God, but I don't think that is what is intended, could be wrong though...

But then again... maybe we would have killed everyone off without God hangin around pulling the reigns back lol, who knows...

This sentence suggests that you're sympathetic to the views the OP argues against.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 8:44:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.
Except that isn't true is it?

Firstly, theists of the same faith can't agree on moral code, so they can't claim to have only one such code.

Secondly, they don't have their moral code because a creator exists. They have it because of how they've interpreted some ancient scriptures which they hope has been influenced by a being sufficiently real and wise to one day validate their interpretation and sufficiently powerful enforce the code interpreted and vindicate its current inefficacy.

And thirdly, what holds that code in place is therefore not scripture nor providence, but tradition: inherited ideas parents and elders teach their young. Which, if it's not challenged and contested (as often it's not), is in fact blind tradition.

Which invites the question: if it's only blind tradition holding religious morality in place, how is that different from irreligious morality, except to the extent that irreligious morality may be tradition challenged and constantly updated by rational compassion, and therefore kinder, more enlightened and more just?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 8:52:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 8:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.
Except that isn't true is it?

That depends on whether you are an atheist or a Theist. If you're a Theist, then of course it's true, or better yet, if God exists then of course morals already exist since God is the first cause.

Firstly, theists of the same faith can't agree on moral code, so they can't claim to have only one such code.

A "moral code" is written/expressed in scripture, if one can't agree on what is written then what can they agree on? I think the scriptures are plain as day as far as morality goes.

Secondly, they don't have their moral code because a creator exists. They have it because of how they've interpreted some ancient scriptures which they hope has been influenced by a being sufficiently real and wise to one day validate their interpretation and sufficiently powerful enforce the code interpreted and vindicate its current inefficacy.

I'm sorry to burst your atheist bubble but who would disagree with the following....
Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Could you point out in this passage what is missing in morality?

And thirdly, what holds that code in place is therefore not scripture nor providence, but tradition: inherited ideas parents and elders teach their young. Which, if it's not challenged and contested (as often it's not), is in fact blind tradition.

Wrong, read the Bible.

Which invites the question: if it's only blind tradition holding religious morality in place, how is that different from irreligious morality, except to the extent that irreligious morality may be tradition challenged and constantly updated by rational compassion, and therefore kinder, more enlightened and more just?

What do you mean by "blind tradition"?? what exactly is blind here? this sounds like another one of your assertions to me to make your point of view sound valid, which of course is not...
As I said, show me in the passage above what is missing, and if you somehow come up with something I will show you it in scripture where it came before you.
So please enlighten us as to what we are missing in morality in the above teachings...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:33:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 8:52:30 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/2/2016 8:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.
Except that isn't true is it?
That depends on whether you are an atheist or a Theist. If you're a Theist, then of course it's true, or better yet, if God exists then of course morals already exist since God is the first cause.

No, you mean only if an intelligent creator of the universe exists, is single and not some consortium, is rational and consistent, is at all concerned about its creation and well-disposed toward it, is honest, has interacted with humanity, that this interaction was through revelation with the authors you've chosen to see as receiving it, was faithfully written into the specific scriptures chosen as canon, was unaltered through redaction, and correctly interpreted by subsequent theologians and clerics, then morals as you understand them were prescribed by the being so conjectured.

Otherwise, you cannot say anything conclusive about the provenance of the morality you hold at all. It's a tradition of unknown provenance.

Firstly, theists of the same faith can't agree on moral code, so they can't claim to have only one such code.
A "moral code" is written/expressed in scripture, if one can't agree on what is written then what can they agree on? I think the scriptures are plain as day as far as morality goes.

Please see the level of uncertainty I mentioned above. It only seems plain to you because of the huge subjective and unsupported assumptions you've stacked up -- which essentially serve no other purpose than privileging your cultural traditions.

Secondly, they don't have their moral code because a creator exists. They have it because of how they've interpreted some ancient scriptures which they hope has been influenced by a being sufficiently real and wise to one day validate their interpretation and sufficiently powerful enforce the code interpreted and vindicate its current inefficacy.
I'm sorry to burst your atheist bubble but who would disagree with the following....
There's no point quoting scripture, EV, until you've authenticated it. Please see: privileging your own traditions.

And thirdly, what holds that code in place is therefore not scripture nor providence, but tradition: inherited ideas parents and elders teach their young. Which, if it's not challenged and contested (as often it's not), is in fact blind tradition.
Wrong, read the Bible.
Read what texts written by whom, when, for what purpose, and produced by what methods?

If you can't authenticate the texts then the texts have no intrinsic authority.

Which invites the question: if it's only blind tradition holding religious morality in place, how is that different from irreligious morality, except to the extent that irreligious morality may be tradition challenged and constantly updated by rational compassion, and therefore kinder, more enlightened and more just?
What do you mean by "blind tradition"?? what exactly is blind here?
Please see the lack of authentication and independent verification of your source canon.

So please enlighten us as to what we are missing in morality in the above teachings...
For starters, compassion, transparency, coherence, consistence, relevance, suitability and accountability?

It's not a moral code. At best it's an unexamined, unauthenticated tradition interpreting a code of tribal law.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 10:10:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:33:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/3/2016 8:52:30 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/2/2016 8:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.
Except that isn't true is it?
That depends on whether you are an atheist or a Theist. If you're a Theist, then of course it's true, or better yet, if God exists then of course morals already exist since God is the first cause.

No, you mean only if an intelligent creator of the universe exists, is single and not some consortium, is rational and consistent, is at all concerned about its creation and well-disposed toward it, is honest, has interacted with humanity, that this interaction was through revelation with the authors you've chosen to see as receiving it, was faithfully written into the specific scriptures chosen as canon, was unaltered through redaction, and correctly interpreted by subsequent theologians and clerics, then morals as you understand them were prescribed by the being so conjectured.

That made no sense, if God exists then morals have exited before us, we only picked up on them, my observation stands.

Otherwise, you cannot say anything conclusive about the provenance of the morality you hold at all. It's a tradition of unknown provenance.

That's bull, I can say plenty conclusive with the teachings of Christianity, would you like to show me otherwise?

Firstly, theists of the same faith can't agree on moral code, so they can't claim to have only one such code.
A "moral code" is written/expressed in scripture, if one can't agree on what is written then what can they agree on? I think the scriptures are plain as day as far as morality goes.

Please see the level of uncertainty I mentioned above. It only seems plain to you because of the huge subjective and unsupported assumptions you've stacked up -- which essentially serve no other purpose than privileging your cultural traditions.

Then show me the assumptions please...

Secondly, they don't have their moral code because a creator exists. They have it because of how they've interpreted some ancient scriptures which they hope has been influenced by a being sufficiently real and wise to one day validate their interpretation and sufficiently powerful enforce the code interpreted and vindicate its current inefficacy.

More irrelevant word salad, you went off track again... this is nothing but opinions, and atheistic ones at that. There is no "inefficacy" dude....

I'm sorry to burst your atheist bubble but who would disagree with the following....
There's no point quoting scripture, EV, until you've authenticated it. Please see: privileging your own traditions.

And thirdly, what holds that code in place is therefore not scripture nor providence, but tradition: inherited ideas parents and elders teach their young. Which, if it's not challenged and contested (as often it's not), is in fact blind tradition.
Wrong, read the Bible.
Read what texts written by whom, when, for what purpose, and produced by what methods?

Read the passage I supplied and the teachings of Christianity. Common sense and spiritual revelations.


If you can't authenticate the texts then the texts have no intrinsic authority.

That is irrelevant to the contents, dummy.

Which invites the question: if it's only blind tradition holding religious morality in place, how is that different from irreligious morality, except to the extent that irreligious morality may be tradition challenged and constantly updated by rational compassion, and therefore kinder, more enlightened and more just?
What do you mean by "blind tradition"?? what exactly is blind here?
Please see the lack of authentication and independent verification of your source canon.

So please enlighten us as to what we are missing in morality in the above teachings...
For starters, compassion, transparency, coherence, consistence, relevance, suitability and accountability?

Compassion is there, transparency is a problem where exactly? coherence means being logical and consistent which you have no grounds to say otherwise, relevance is there, suitability is preference and accountability is an aspect of Christianity you should know already LOL, that is what God is for....

It's not a moral code. At best it's an unexamined, unauthenticated tradition interpreting a code of tribal law.

Morality exists within behavior and how we treat others, if you missed that in the passage I supplied you're an idiot :)
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 10:11:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 4:02:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
You are so right and yet that is the claim made by most of the theists on this site.
Go figure.

I'm pretty sure most theists argue that if there was no God then there would be no way to objectively say that murdering other people is morally wrong.

I don't think that equates to them actually wanting to go around and kill people.

Then again, I haven't seen all the people on DDO.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 10:33:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 10:10:25 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:33:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/3/2016 8:52:30 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/2/2016 8:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/2/2016 2:34:54 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I think what the Theist is attempting to say is that we have a moral foundation/model (that already exists) and the reason is because of the existence of a Creator.
Except that isn't true is it?
That depends on whether you are an atheist or a Theist. If you're a Theist, then of course it's true, or better yet, if God exists then of course morals already exist since God is the first cause.
No, you mean only if an intelligent creator of the universe exists, is single and not some consortium, is rational and consistent, is at all concerned about its creation and well-disposed toward it, is honest, has interacted with humanity, that this interaction was through revelation with the authors you've chosen to see as receiving it, was faithfully written into the specific scriptures chosen as canon, was unaltered through redaction, and correctly interpreted by subsequent theologians and clerics, then morals as you understand them were prescribed by the being so conjectured.
That made no sense, if God exists then morals have exited before us, we only picked up on them, my observation stands.
No, you have to define the recognition criteria for this being called 'God' first. I've stipulated those criteria for you, and you're welcome to replace them with something more rigorous and consistent if you have it:
1) An intelligent creator of the universe;
2) Who is unique, and not some consortium of beings;
3) Is rational and consistent;
4) Is concerned about its creation and humanity;
5) Is honest and trustworthy;
6) Has interacted with humanity;
7) This interaction was through revelation with the authorities who wrote or influenced the writing of scripture;
8) These interactions were faithfully recorded;
9) They were substantially unaltered through redaction;
10) They were correctly identified and interpreted by theologians and clerics.

If these conditions hold, then you can say that what you understand to be morality, is founded in interactions with a unique, compassionate, honest, engaged creator of the universe.

However, if any of these conditions don't hold then you can say nothing about your understanding of morality. In fact, if any of 1-5 don't hold, then you cannot hope that the universe is morally ordered at all with regard to human interests, and if any of 6-10 don't hold then you can't hope that any moral order in the universe has any relevance to human traditions.

Otherwise, you cannot say anything conclusive about the provenance of the morality you hold at all. It's a tradition of unknown provenance.
I can say plenty conclusive with the teachings of Christianity, would you like to show me otherwise?
I just did. Now, to say anything conclusive about the provenance of Christian morality, you need to either meet my recognition criteria with independent evidence, or provide criteria that are more rigorous than my own, and meet those with independent evidence.

Firstly, theists of the same faith can't agree on moral code, so they can't claim to have only one such code.
A "moral code" is written/expressed in scripture, if one can't agree on what is written then what can they agree on? I think the scriptures are plain as day as far as morality goes.
No, you have called some laws and exhortations written in texts of unknown provenance, morality.

That's not the same as demonstrating that it is morality.

Please see the level of uncertainty I mentioned above. It only seems plain to you because of the huge subjective and unsupported assumptions you've stacked up -- which essentially serve no other purpose than privileging your cultural traditions.
Then show me the assumptions please...
Please see my list, carefully numbered for your convenience.

Secondly, they don't have their moral code because a creator exists. They have it because of how they've interpreted some ancient scriptures which they hope has been influenced by a being sufficiently real and wise to one day validate their interpretation and sufficiently powerful enforce the code interpreted and vindicate its current inefficacy.
this is nothing but opinions,
You mean reasoned, independent critique of the logic that claims morality exists because a being ill-defined in unauthenticated scripture is held to exist?

Even if the universe had a single, unique creator, EV, that does not presuppose a moral universe, or a universe with morality relevant to humanity, or a universe with a morality delivered by revelation.

You need to work through your reasoning meticulously.

There is no "inefficacy" dude....
Sure there is. You have thousands of Christian sects who all hold the same scripture sacred, yet can't agree on what Christian morality actually means.

Surely, any effective moral code ought to at least be unambiguous, relevant and comprehensive. If it's not, how can it be effective?

Wrong, read the Bible.
Read what texts written by whom, when, for what purpose, and produced by what methods?
Read the passage I supplied and the teachings of Christianity. Common sense and spiritual revelations.
Except that Christians don't all teach their dogma the same way, do they? And what you call 'common sense' is not agreed on by a majority of the world's population, so it can't be called common. And what you call spiritual revelations are simply privileging your own cultural traditions while denigrating other traditions.

If you can't authenticate the texts then the texts have no intrinsic authority.
That is irrelevant to the contents.
It's relevant to how you select, prioritise, construe and interpret them.

So please enlighten us as to what we are missing in morality in the above teachings...
For starters, compassion, transparency, coherence, consistence, relevance, suitability and accountability?
Compassion is there, transparency is a problem where exactly? coherence means being logical and consistent which you have no grounds to say otherwise, relevance is there, suitability is preference and accountability is an aspect of Christianity you should know already LOL, that is what God is for....
You probably should address my epistemological points properly, EV, before misconstruing and misapplying my moral criticisms.

It's not a moral code. At best it's an unexamined, unauthenticated tradition interpreting a code of tribal law.
Morality exists within behavior and how we treat others
We could discuss what makes moral thought effective, and what makes it moral. But I think you're struggling so badly with the epistemology that this isn't worth doing just yet. So for now, please focus on the chain of your reasoning.