Atheism and Morality

Coriolanus

So, after seeing the issue raised in the veggie thread, I'm wondering about atheists and the various systems of morality one can subscribe to. Personally I think there'll be a correlation with relativism or at most, utilitariansim on the the universal end of things.

Interested to see what everyone else thinks.

Turtwig

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

I usually just tow the line that what's good is good but not because God says it is so. In other words, I usually argue with the theist folk that there is an absolute level of morality that is in its essence pure altruistic cooperation. Through cooperation a society and indeed humanity advances. The example I love to bring up is the EU, some French guy (cannot remember who) said the violent conflicts between tribes decrease as they start sharing goods/services with one another - one look at the EU will tell you that is true. When is the last time the very thought of France invading Germany struck your mind, now? So my argument is simply that any other alien species out there is most likely to advance through cooperation, sharing of goods and services etc. etc. That there must be some ultimate or absolute level of universal cooperation by which a society can maintain health and grow.

It is a largely a statement of faith, but for the purpose of the debates heres on boards I'm going to leave it here for now....

Had George Bush morals?
Hitler?
Blair?
Any of those priests that were raping children?

None of these were Atheists.


Treat others with respect whether you believe in a God or not.

Flamed Diving

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

rarnes1 wrote: »

Had George Bush morals?
Hitler?
Blair?
Any of those priests that were raping children?

None of these were Atheists.


Treat others with respect whether you believe in a God or not.

In before Jakkass uses the word 'secular'.

Ickle Magoo

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

Not considering either as absolutes, I'd say I'm slightly more of a universalist than relativist - on the surface I like the idea of relativism but it falls down for me when it comes to some of the more controversial issues such as female circumcision or stoning women that have been raped for adultery.

In saying that, I think it is possible to find certain practices morally objectionable and not want to or have to intervene or alter them...

robindch

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

Nevore wrote: »

Personally I think there'll be a correlation with relativism or at most, utilitariansim on the the universal end of things.

I'm not aware of any atheists or agnostics who subscribe to the kind of relativism that religious people keep railing about (and to which many of them subscribe, although without seeming to be aware of it).

On the contrary, most stick to a fairly solidly non-relativist position, on the liberal (non-authoritarian) side of the argument. This usually gives rise to a respectably utilitarian view of how people should interact, and how values should be assigned.

BTW, the word "moral" is usually used to describe religious or authoritarian systems (where you are provided with a fixed set of rules by somebody else), while the word "ethical" is usually used to describe non-religious or liberal systems (where rules are subject to debate and change by the people who are subject to the rules).

iUseVi

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

I was forced to vote option 2, but tbh the poll was ridiculously restrictive in its bipolarity. I don't consider my self a moral relativist. More of a moral nihilist. (wikipedia def) The difference is slim I know in practice, but meh.

I.e., no such thing as objective morality, it is purely human created. Practically speaking I'm utilitarian.

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

iUseVi wrote: »

I.e., no such thing as objective morality, it is purely human created

It's not really. An awful lot of it is built into our genes by evolution and isn't decided at any conscious level. Animals regularly display signs of morality

iUseVi

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not really. An awful lot of it is built into our genes by evolution and isn't decided at any conscious level. Animals regularly display signs of morality

Yeah, when I said created by humans I didn't mean necessarily just on the conscious level. Created by natural means if you like.

bnt

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

If you're going to believe in moral absolutes, you'd have to know what those absolutes are, and (preferably) where they come from. Atheists don't believe in any supernatural origins of ... well, anything, whether you're talking about things or ideas, or any notion of supernatural authority.

So, Morals are a human invention, and I don't consider anything related to the human race absolute in any real sense. We weren't always here, and won't always be here, and morals can't exist without people, can they?

(Personally,. I never use the word "Morals" seriously, since I prefer to think in terms of Ethics. It avoids confusion: people usually get what Ethics are and how they come in to being e.g. the Hippocratic Oath.)0

Coriolanus

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

robindch wrote: »

BTW, the word "moral" is usually used to describe religious or authoritarian systems (where you are provided with a fixed set of rules by somebody else), while the word "ethical" is usually used to describe non-religious or liberal systems (where rules are subject to debate and change by the people who are subject to the rules).

I use them interchangeably, though I see now the distinction and how it could give rise to misunderstanding. Thanks for the heads up.

Johro

Yeah.. I think the poll is a bit restrictive in its options alright. I'm not really any of those, I'm just me. I'm not a believer in God though, (restrictive comes to mind again), I've always thought we don't need religious rules to tell us right from wrong coz we already know in our hearts. Where does that come from though? Anyone any ideas? Like, is it instinctive or learnt, or does it come from a need to please others as we are essentially a herd animal. Yeah thats right, sheep. What a crappy thought...

Dave!

This thread reminds me of an experiment Michael Shermer (:D) discussed in a talk of his. 2 chimps were put in adjacent cages that were elevated, with a rope from each going down to one basket with fruit in it. In order to get the fruit, the chimps both had to cooperate and pull the ropes together. I guess the experiment was set up so that once the fruit reached a sufficient height, it ended up with only one of the chimps grabbing it.

Then it was up to the chimp to decide whether to share it with the other chimp in the adjacent cage. After he had, or hadn't, the experiment was run again. If the winner did share the fruit, then they continued to cooperate and share the loot each time. If the winner didn't share it the first time, then the other chimp refused to take part in any subsequent efforts.

It's similar to the Ultimatum game, in which two people are presented with a situation where one of them is given $100 to split between them. They get to make one offer to the other person, and the other person decides whether to take it or not. If they accept the offer, then they both keep the money, if not then nobody does.

If you're being rational, then the person making the offer offers as little as possible, and the other person just accepts it no matter what, since they had no money coming in and could walk out with 10$ for doing nothing really. But what's observed is that if the offer is too low, the person turns it down on the basis that it's not a fair split, that they would effectively pay $10 in order for the other person to not get the $90

Pretty cool stuff I think !

Not necessarily directly related to morality, but it's probably relevant because it shows how this kind of thing can be ingrained in us, and certainly interesting

Johro

By the way, anyone here ever check out 'Zeitgeist' and/or Zeitgeist Addendum'? Kinda interesting. Have a look at http://tinyurl.com/nbdgsc and http://tinyurl.com/mng8oa.

tricky D

fyi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Daftendirekt

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

I think I'd consider myself a kind of moral relativist.

I don't believe in a universal moral standard, and even if there was one, it'd be of no use to us since, we could never know what it was.

I also don't believe that morality is determined by whatever your society dictates, or whatever the individual chooses to believe is right or wrong. The only standard morality can be judged against (for it to be any use to us, anyway) is our own sense of empathy. Behaviour that is influenced by our compassion for others is what I'd consider to be 'moral'.

It's a simple enough understanding of morality, but I'd imagine it's shared by many others.

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In before Jakkass uses the word 'secular'.

Now that I have the go ahead, I may as well try to do this without using the word 'secular' :pac:

I don't think one should defend the Roman Catholic church for child abuse, but the problem in Ireland goes way beyond the Roman Catholic church. There's been a huge problem with this in Irish society for decades where people were abused by family members or family friends and in other situations.

I find it disingenuous when people cite child abuse to promote atheism when much child abuse took place outside the Roman Catholic church.

Valid point I would have thought?

As for answering the question:
I'm a moral universalist, and God is the ultimate standard of morality in my opinion. Most of you will have known that by now.

Ickle Magoo

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it disingenuous when people cite child abuse to promote atheism when much child abuse took place outside the Roman Catholic church.

Valid point I would have thought?

Valid if I thought slamming the RCC & the promotion of atheism was one & the same. I think there is a world of difference between suggesting a religious organisation is depraved and not worthy of support and suggesting God is.

Turtwig

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

Jakkass wrote: »

As for answering the question:
I'm a moral universalist, and God is the ultimate standard of morality in my opinion. Most of you will have known that by now.

We do.
So Jakkass, God is the ultimate standard, but I think he's a sinister mass murderer.Which isn't really a standard of morality to hold by.

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Malty_T wrote: »

We do.
So Jakkass, God is the ultimate standard, but I think he's a sinister mass murderer.Which isn't really a standard of morality to hold by.

You can choose to cross the boundaries and reject Him entirely. That's your choice.

Murder = unlawful killing.

If God has universal authority over this world, I believe that He gives life as a gift to us, and He has every right to revoke it according to the moral standard He has set. I don't consider that murder either.

Murder is when someone takes someone else's life. Although this view is controversial for some. I believe God created the world, and as a result everything in it is His, including you and I.

smurgen

"I don't think one should defend the Roman Catholic church for child abuse''-then please don't.

"There's been a huge problem with this in Irish society for decades where people were abused by family members or family friends and in other situations."there is a world of difference with someone being abused by their own family member and a protected member of an international organisation worth billions that were left to care for the most vulnerable of children.

"I find it disingenuous when people cite child abuse to promote atheism when much child abuse took place outside the Roman Catholic church." I find it disingenuous when people cite the child abuse that happened outside the Roman Catholic Church to defend theism.

Flamed Diving

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

smurgen wrote: »

"I don't think one should defend the Roman Catholic church for child abuse''-then please don't.

"There's been a huge problem with this in Irish society for decades where people were abused by family members or family friends and in other situations."there is a world of difference with someone being abused by their own family member and a protected member of an international organisation worth billions that were left to care for the most vulnerable of children.

"I find it disingenuous when people cite child abuse to promote atheism when much child abuse took place outside the Roman Catholic church." I find it disingenuous when people cite the child abuse that happened outside the Roman Catholic Church to defend theism.

Our paedophiles weren't as bad as your paedophiles, etc.

Only the religious could contrive such an argument.

smurgen

dont understand what moral relativism or anything is so i'm just going to lay down my morality in very basic terms:

i'm entering and leaving the world with the aim of not doing any intentional damage to people and i just know what is right and wrong myself-maby my parents gave me my morals i dont know. either way, i dont believe in god but if there is one i'm sure he'll have as much damage to answer for as i will,when all is said and done.

rccaulfield

No idea wat those terms mean tbh!

lmaopml

Malty_T wrote: »

I usually just tow the line that what's good is good but not because God says it is so. In other words, I usually argue with the theist folk that there is an absolute level of morality that is in its essence pure altruistic cooperation. Through cooperation a society and indeed humanity advances. The example I love to bring up is the EU, some French guy (cannot remember who) said the violent conflicts between tribes decrease as they start sharing goods/services with one another - one look at the EU will tell you that is true. When is the last time the very thought of France invading Germany struck your mind, now? So my argument is simply that any other alien species out there is most likely to advance through cooperation, sharing of goods and services etc. etc. That there must be some ultimate or absolute level of universal cooperation by which a society can maintain health and grow.

It is a largely a statement of faith, but for the purpose of the debates heres on boards I'm going to leave it here for now....

I agree with you Malty, in some weird and random way it is a profession of faith in people etc...I LIKE the EU..I like the safeguards and the policies that protect, in some ways all interests, and have no reason to think otherwise up to now.........and I think it's a good starting point. I am fearful however of those who don't want to see it emerge...not as a global multipower - but as a simple 'co-op'...I like the green policies, and the open doors policy, it's to be welcomed - but I must say, I am a little skeptical of those in power at times...

..it's up to the people to keep them inline!

...Things are never easy are they?? lol..there is always the if's, but's and and's...

I do think it's a cool idea though..and I welcome it, as part of progression...because it protects me too..It's something that we should be taught about more..I often wonder how many people actually understand fully the whole deal??? It should be part of the curriculum at this stage - EU history and politics, the structure of government and the importance it plays.....Perhaps it is now??? I'm not 100% sure...

..I hope it all works out well..I look forward anyway, with optimism

Daftendirekt

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

As for answering the question:
I'm a moral universalist, and God is the ultimate standard of morality in my opinion. Most of you will have known that by now.

When you say 'God is the ultimate standard of morality' do you basically mean that morality is whatever God dictates it to be?

Because that sounds like a form of moral relativism to me.

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Daftendirekt wrote: »

When you say 'God is the ultimate standard of morality' do you basically mean that morality is whatever God dictates it to be?

Because that sounds like a form of moral relativism to me.

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

The whole thing of god being perfectly moral has always bugged me. In the bible god kills many people, orders human sacrifice, sets bears on children, destroys cities etc etc etc but these things are called moral because it's him doing them. It's easy to call someone perfectly moral when you define moral as "whatever god does". The situation is:

• Morality is objective
• God is perfectly moral
• God destroys cities
• Therefore destroying cities is perfectly moral and we should do it with no moral qualms whatsoever

But of course it doesn't work like that. What's immoral for me is moral for god and what's immoral for me to do today can be moral for me to do tomorrow if god orders it. And they call us moral relativists

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The whole thing of god being perfectly moral has always bugged me. In the bible god kills many people, orders human sacrifice, sets bears on children, destroys cities etc etc etc but these things are called moral because it's him doing them. It's easy to call someone perfectly moral when you define moral as "whatever god does". The situation is:

• Morality is objective
• God is perfectly moral
• God destroys cities
• Therefore destroying cities is perfectly moral and we should do it with no moral qualms whatsoever

But of course it doesn't work like that. What's immoral for me is moral for god and what's immoral for me to do today can be moral for me to do tomorrow if god orders it. And they call us moral relativists

Hi Sam,

It's easy to pick out 'bits' from the bible and self interpret....

...surely you can see that, that is not the way of Christianity? We don't claim to understand 'all' things ( mostly )


...and apart from the fact that we say whatever God deems as being an absolute 'moral' wrong or right? We only really know what you are against??? Any kind of belief in God! We don't really 'know' you or your morals? What to you is 'moral'? Would you put you 'beliefs' on the line for all and sundry to pick apart? That's what Christians do every day.....do you find something wrong with Christian morality? If so, then what?

lmaopml

Hi again,

I sometimes wonder do we just speak the same language but interpret eachother differently at times...cause we're next door neighbours at the end of the day..lol...

Kinda like this video which I came across tonight and I thought was cool at how people interpret eachother differently...lol...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nI_5AoHvc

Nothing too heavy, just funny to see the different reactions and sense of humours, and what people believe depending on the 'deliverer'.....hope you guys don't mind too much. It's funny, and defo 'human'

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Sam,

It's easy to pick out 'bits' from the bible and self interpret....

...surely you can see that, that is not the way of Christianity? We don't claim to understand 'all' things ( mostly )

You've got that slightly wrong there. It's not the way of christians but it is the way of christianity. The reality is that christians get their morality from the same place that everyone else does, their parents, their peers and their evolved instincts, but they like to think that they're getting them from the bible. Sorry but they're just not, if they were they would still own slaves.

lmaopml wrote: »

...and apart from the fact that we say whatever God deems as being an absolute 'moral' wrong or right? We only really know what you are against??? Any kind of belief in God! We don't really 'know' you or your morals? What to you is 'moral'? Would you put you 'beliefs' on the line for all and sundry to pick apart? That's what Christians do every day

My morality is pretty much the same as yours, I do everything I can to avoid harming others and I help people out whenever I can. I treat others as I would like to be treated, it's really as simple as that. Without going into too much detail, a few weeks ago I put my own safety at risk in order to help someone who was having some kind of a mental breakdown and wanted to get to a hospital. I could have left him and my girlfriend was very angry at me the next day for putting myself at risk like that but I couldn't in good conscience leave him the way he was. And I did all that without reading in a book that it's supposed to be the right thing to do and without believing that there is any reward for me after death. I do good because it is good, I need no other reason.

lmaopml wrote: »

.....do you find something wrong with Christian morality? If so, then what?

A previous post I wrote on the problems with christian morality:

1. The condoning of owning human beings as property and beating them
2. The instruction that women are not allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
3. The declaration as immoral of mindsets over which someone has no control. Someone does not choose to be attracted to the same sex any more than someone chooses to be attracted to the opposite sex, they are compelled by their bodies. Also I cannot force myself to believe something. I can tell people I believe and behave as if I believe but if I do not find something convincing there is nothing I can do other than lie to myself. Both of these involuntary mindsets earn eternal torture.
4. Punishment for acts which do not harm others such as homosexuality, gathering sticks on the Sabbath, sowing your field with two different seeds, not finding something convincing etc
5. Infinite punishment for finite crimes and for non-crimes
6. The torture and murder of an innocent man named Jesus for the crimes of others (the crime is being born). Scapegoating is not moral
7. Deliberately making it more difficult for people to avoid eternal torture by wilfully denying proof. The promotion in general of credulity as a virtue over rational inquiry and scepticism.
8. The completely random, pointless and amoral nature by which god performs "miracles", allowing vast millions to die needlessly but making an apparition appear at Knock and Lourdes and appearing in visions to random people and giving some people "feelings" that the bible is true, thereby saving them and not giving others these feelings, thereby dooming them
9. The necessity of punishment for sins. Evolutionary morality began as a survival mechanism but human reason has risen it beyond that. Secular ethics prescribes ethical behaviour for no other reason than it is ethical, it says that we should do good for good's sake, not to avoid people doing wrong to us but because we would not like wrong done to us, regardless of whether it will ever actually be done or not. Christian morality on the other hand threatens eternal torture for immorality (and things which are not immoral) so it is in fact the ultimate "I'll scratch your back". It's "I'll scratch your back so Satan doesn't spend eternity scratching mine"

I know you will tell me that you don't believe in most of the above but the fact remains that all of the above are part of christian morality. All you show by telling me that is that you don't actually get your morals from christianity, you had morals long before you knew who Jesus was. The morality in the bible "rang true" for you because you already knew right from wrong before you ever picked up the bible because you were born with evolved instincts and because you live in a moral society. You like all christians pick and choose the bits you already knew to be moral and either ignore or try to excuse the bits you already know aren't moral.

You don't need religion to be moral and it's a terrible source of morality anyway. I know you don't think I deserve to burn for eternity for not believing in Jesus but that is what your religion teaches will happen to me. You find ways to get around that particular teaching or just not think of it because it goes against your ingrained moral sense. You, like all sane people, are more moral than your supposed god.

lmaopml

Ohh dear! I think Sam sometimes we do speak the same, but a different language at times...

I will tell you the truth of my beliefs: I think you're a very clever ( really clever ) and questioning guy, I 'believe' you are 'moral' because you are made in the image of God...how that impedes on why you think you're 'moral' I don't know....It's a 'belief' a 'thought' the same way as somebody else may not say it to your face, but may think that your brilliant or silly whatever.....We're just kinda 'upfront' us Christians...not like the guy or girl opposit you every day at your desk

It's the very reason why Christians believe that we will see people with no belief that can be 'better' people than some who claim to have 'belief'..simply because we are made in God's image..This is really really basic to Christians...It's why we should never judge others..

Look, at the end of the day, most Christians are not out to do anybody harm ( genuine Christians ) we do our best to be fair in vast majorities, and we do good in vast majorities every day in the name of Jesus - We would just like the right to 'practice' and illustrate Jesus in our ways and by demonstration of our lives to show people the 'way' we believe is full of truth...the 'way' through Jesus......I don't think there is a Christian who would deny a person their free choice to choose 'not' to believe.....and to within reason try to shape the world around them to suit their own version of 'morality'!

We just bring our own with us when we go to a voting booth....we try to judge as well as anybody else does, and we're not so different, except for we believe in God and in Jesus as God our maker who walked the earth to tell us the way and enlighten us...

I know you may think this sounds twighlight zoney etc. but nonetheless truth is sometimes stranger than fiction - and 'man' is a mix of so many many things we just don't understand or even fathom...

Perhaps in 10,000 years science will be the only religion...I would prefer to see a world that is peaceful and one that invites both scientific understanding and religious understanding with freedom of expression for all....

Gosh, Utopia! lol..

ShooterSF

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think there is a Christian who would deny a person their free choice to choose 'not' to believe.....and to within reason try to shape the world around them to suit their own version of 'morality'!

Gay marriage? Abortion?...

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

lmaopml wrote: »

Ohh dear! I think Sam sometimes we do speak the same, but a different language at times...

I will tell you the truth of my beliefs: I think you're a very clever ( really clever ) and questioning guy,

Well thank you

lmaopml wrote: »

I 'believe' you are 'moral' because you are made in the image of God...how that impedes on why you think you're 'moral' I don't know....It's a 'belief' a 'thought' the same way as somebody else may not say it to your face, but may think that your brilliant or silly whatever.....We're just kinda 'upfront' us Christians...not like the guy or girl opposit you every day at your desk

So how do you explain the morality that is commonly displayed by animals? I could list you any number of examples from scientific studies but one that pops out because I saw it in the march of the penguins a few weeks ago is that when the young are born some inevitably die and occasionally a grieving mother will attempt to steal another mother's child but the herd (flock?) will not let it happen and will physically restrain the grieving mother until she gives up. Penguins not only grieve the loss of young but they know that stealing the young of another is wrong and will put themselves at risk to prevent it.

The animal kingdom is full of things like this and I can completely explain it through evolved instincts of empathy, reciprocity and fairness but it cannot be explained by the idea of god imparting some kind of divine morality into humans.

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think there is a Christian who would deny a person their free choice to choose 'not' to believe.....and to within reason try to shape the world around them to suit their own version of 'morality'!

You say you believe that I am moral and I can confirm that I do my best to treat others well at all times but your religion teaches that no matter how well I live my life, I will burn for eternity because I do not believe that Jesus was the son of god. Do you think I deserve that?

If so, why?

If not, why follow "christian morality"? The golden rule of morality is not exclusively christian after all

lmaopml

Hi Shooter SF!

I have a gorgeous gay brother in law! I respect his freedom of choice too, and I submit the whole to God above...

He was baptised, confirmed, a God Parent to one of my children and I love him dearly...but I am not him, I have my very own 'stuff' that I unfortunately have to bear....

...it reminds me of when my grandmother told me about 'putting all our problems out on the table to pick one', and we would perhaps grab our own back...

I love him, I'm pretty sure God does too...

Abortion! is a really tricky subject, and perhaps one for an entire thread without going off topic on the opening post....

...I don't like it, love it, or see it as the ultimate 'answer' in it's current form ( do you?? ) but hey I'm just one voice and one vote, and I will bow to the majority but rail and wage war for beliefs within my own family, namely my sons....I will do my utmost to make sure that they do not ever ever ever put a girl in the way of having to choose that option...especially as a convenience of sorts....I will bring them up to respect their partners, and to try to do their utmost as far as making responsible decisions is concerned...

Sorry, I don't want to drag the thread off topic.....

Anyway, nite! lol...It's late...:)

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Shooter SF!

I have a gorgeous gay brother in law! I respect his freedom of choice too, and I submit the whole to God above...

He was baptised, confirmed, a God Parent to one of my children and I love him dearly...but I am not him, I have my very own 'stuff' that I unfortunately have to bear....

I love him, I'm pretty sure God does too...

Are you comfortable with the knowledge that your god is going to torture your brother-in-law for eternity? The bible is not unclear on this matter*




*Unless of course he's accepted Jesus as his saviour, then everything is hunky dory. Gayness is cool, abortion is cool, rape is cool, child molestation is cool, mass murder is cool, anything you do will be forgiven except not finding a 2000 year old story convincing.

ShooterSF

Hi lmaopml

Surely, and with no need to get into the finer details of abortion (yes very much a thread of it's own), the point being made here is that your morals are internal based on your feelings through possibly a mix of nature and nurture. Not installed in you or commanded on you by any creator. That is why you realise your brother-in-law's actions are fine and you would most likely be appalled if he was punished for them (jailed etc.).

This is the point. Our morals/ethics whatever you call them are self developed (that's why they change through time) and you and I can have strong and very similar morals not because a creator put them there but because we share a species and most likely share in one society. Sure some of my views and yours differ but, and here's the catcher, neither belief has more divinity over the other because at the end of the day we both came up with our own ethics. Ethics that are man (and woman) made.

My main concern is with those that back up their beliefs with some higher power as proof that they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Daftendirekt wrote: »

When you say 'God is the ultimate standard of morality' do you basically mean that morality is whatever God dictates it to be?

Good is only good because God defined it as such.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Because that sounds like a form of moral relativism to me.

How? God is a supreme authority. I.E His moral guidelines will be binding on everyone in Christian belief.

That isn't the same as saying whatever floats your boat. Everyone will be accountable.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

I think so.

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

smurgen wrote: »

"I don't think one should defend the Roman Catholic church for child abuse''-then please don't.

I'm not. I'm merely putting it in perspective.

smurgen wrote: »

"There's been a huge problem with this in Irish society for decades where people were abused by family members or family friends and in other situations."there is a world of difference with someone being abused by their own family member and a protected member of an international organisation worth billions that were left to care for the most vulnerable of children.

Both are as bad.

smurgen wrote: »

"I find it disingenuous when people cite child abuse to promote atheism when much child abuse took place outside the Roman Catholic church." I find it disingenuous when people cite the child abuse that happened outside the Roman Catholic Church to defend theism.

I'm saying this as a non-Catholic and a complete outsider to it, and putting this into the correct and valid context isn't defending my beliefs (Anglicanism) in the slightest. It's about fair and valid criticism.

If I wanted to I could manipulate such circumstances to put forward my own beliefs, but I don't considering as that it wrong (Back to morals).

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

Good is only good because God defined it as such.

So if god decided tomorrow that child rape was not only moral but a moral obligation and communicated this to us in no uncertain terms, you would have no problem whatsoever with it and would begin to rape children?

I ask because god has at many times in the past demanded that people kill so it seems that god can ask us to do things that would normally be considered immoral and they become moral because he has told us to do them.

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Also, you have said on many occasions that you didn't find faith until two or three years ago. Before that did you kill many people and if not why not, considering you believe that good is only what god says it is? What did you consider to be good before you found faith?

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So if god decided tomorrow that child rape was not only moral but a moral obligation and communicated this to us in no uncertain terms, you would have no problem whatsoever with it and would begin to rape children?

I don't believe there will be any further revelation that is not harmonious with what has gone before it.

Galatians 1:8 wrote:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

The Bible already states that rape isn't acceptable.

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe there will be any further revelation that is not harmonious with what has gone before it.

The Bible already states that rape isn't acceptable.

I didn't ask what you believe will happen, I asked you what would you do if this happened. The bible also states that killing isn't acceptable and yet god demanded it many many times. Divine commands to do things that would otherwise be immoral is totally consistent with the god of the bible but even if it wasn't, you don't know what god's greater plan is and you can't pretend to understand god so if he unequivocally told us all to rape children, would you do it and would you have any reservations in doing it? As you say, good is good because god has defined it as such so there is nothing stopping him defining child rape as good

My guess from your unwillingness to answer the question is that, no, of course you wouldn't do it because child rape is wrong no matter who tells you to do it because good is good and bad is bad completely independently of any divine being. There is more to morality than an argument from authority

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Sam, we wouldn't be talking about Christianity any more. So it would be utterly futile to discuss it. I believe in the God of Christianity, not in any other concept of God. Important to note that.

My "unwillingness" is about relevance. I'm not here to talk about what Thor defines as good, but rather I'm here to discuss what God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) defines as good.

Child rape is wrong, because it is universally so. Likewise theft is wrong, or murder is wrong. My moral structure works fine on these things while regarding that God has made me to be a moral person and uphold His standards which are the best of all.

What is your standard of good based on? Is it relative? Just curious.

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, we wouldn't be talking about Christianity any more. So it would be utterly futile to discuss it. I believe in the God of Christianity, not in any other concept of God. Important to note that.

Well let's forget rape so. If god told you to sacrifice your son to him, would you do it? He has done exactly that in the past.

edit: also, please don't point out that Abraham was stopped at the last minute. Jephthah wasn't

philologos

Religious and some kind of moral relativist

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: also, please don't point out that Abraham was stopped at the last minute. Jephthah wasn't

Despite the fact that it was regarded as a "tragedy" for all Israel if one actually reads the passage. I'll continue this in the morning :pac:

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

My "unwillingness" is about relevance. I'm not here to talk about what Thor defines as good, but rather I'm here to discuss what God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) defines as good.

Child rape is wrong, because it is universally so. Likewise theft is wrong, or murder is wrong. My moral structure works fine on these things while regarding that God has made me to be a moral person and uphold His standards which are the best of all.

All I can really do is repeat myself and hope you don't avoid the question again:

1. According to you child rape is wrong only because god says so and there is no other reason to view it as wrong.
2. God has in the past asked people to do things that would otherwise be immoral.
3. If god asks you to do something it is by definition perfectly moral even if you don't understand the greater purpose behind it
4. If god asked you to do something that would otherwise be immoral such as kill someone or rape a child would you do it?

You simply cannot say "we're talking about the god of christianity, not Thor", because your god has commanded things exactly like this in the past. Divine commands to harm others are exactly what your god does

Jakkass wrote: »

What is your standard of good based on? Is it relative? Just curious.

My standard of good is: if something hurts others, it's wrong. It's the same standard of good you have which is why you wouldn't rape a child even if your god told you to.

And yes my standard of good is relative and based on context, such as the difference between shouting fire in a crowded theatre versus shouting it in an empty forest. But I see shouting fire in a crowded theatre as wrong because it harms others where you think it's wrong because god says so and if he commanded you to do it it would somehow become good. The difference between me and you it seems is that for me, if something is wrong it's wrong no matter who does it or no matter who tells you to do it.

Tell me honestly Jakkass, do you see no merit whatsoever in the position "something is wrong if it harms others"?

Sam Vimes

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

Jakkass wrote: »

Despite the fact that it was regarded as a "tragedy" for all Israel if one actually reads the passage. I'll continue this in the morning :pac:

Yeah I know that, as I pointed out to Flamed Diving earlier today. The fact remains that your god has commanded human sacrifice in the past so the idea of him asking you to kill your child is completely consistent with his character. So the question remains, would you do it?

robindch

An AorA and some kind of moral relativist

Jakkass wrote: »

Child rape is wrong, because it is universally so. Likewise theft is wrong, or murder is wrong.

Universally?

Do you believe that raping a child is bad because your god has said so, or do you believe that raping a child is bad because it is always bad in and of itself (ie, it's an absolute evil and cannot be made into a good thing, even if you believed your god told you it was good)?

the_syco

The bible is said that say it's okay to have slaves. This I believe morally wrong, so I don't keep slaves.

liamw

the_syco wrote: »

The bible is said that say it's okay to have slaves. This I believe morally wrong, so I don't keep slaves.

Oh no, please don't get Jakkass started on the ridiculous employer-employee / slavedriver-slave analogy. I'm actually glad that Christians use this analagy as it really shows how desperate they are to reconcile their objective morality belief.

Flamed Diving

Religious and some kind of moral universalist

liamw wrote: »

Oh no, please don't get Jakkass started on the ridiculous employer-employee / slavedriver-slave analogy. I'm actually glad that Christians use this analagy as it really shows how desperate they are to reconcile their objective morality belief.

Apparently it's not the fact that being a slave means being someone's property or chattel, oh no. All that matters is whether the person who was the slave wanted to be part of the deal, and that they were probably better off, for it. Ignoring the implausibility of all this and the thousands and thousands of slaves that God commanded the Israelites to capture and rape, this argument completely misses the point that a slave is a slave is a slave. No matter how flowery the contract is.

Get. That. Into. Your. Brainwashed. Mind.