# Hypothetical



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Let's go with a hypothetical situation.

And before anybody decideds to start ranting and thinking for me and putting words in my mouth, THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK ABOUT ALL ATHEISTS. I BELIEVE ATHEISTS HAVE MORALS.

I am an Atheist. I beat my children daily, and my wife when she does things that I don't like. I don't believe I am wrong in doing this. They have no real purpose on this earth but to be hit by me everyday, after all, they are only but random chance DNA with no instinsic values. I might not let any of them live much longer.

Can a real Atheist tell me why I am wrong? I am not asserting that one can't give very good reasons as to why this is wrong, I would just like to learn.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Let's go with a hypothetical situation.
> 
> And before anybody decideds to start ranting and thinking for me and putting words in my mouth, THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK ABOUT ALL ATHEISTS. I BELIEVE ATHEISTS HAVE MORALS.
> 
> ...



I think you've found a new low.   I don't think the smilie hides your intentions at all.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think you've found a new low.   I don't think the smilie hides your intentions at all.



I don't know why it is low, I think it is a legitimate argument. I am not trying to be arrogant or dirogatory to anybody on this forum, I have never done that before and I don't know why everyone seems to think that I am now.

Will you answer the question?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

You're going to have to play by yourself.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You're going to have to play by yourself.



Why?


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you believe the only way to avoid impulses, like beating family members, is to have God in your life?  Do assume that without God there are no morals?  I personally don't know anyone, atheist or otherwise, that would think there are no consequences to bad actions.  Am I missing your intent?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Do you believe the only way to avoid impulses, like beating family members, is to have God in your life?


No.



> Do assume that without God there are no morals?


I assume God gave us instrinsic morals, which is why I believe atheists have morals just like I do, thats why I put that statement in the OP.




> I personally don't know anyone, atheist or otherwise, that would think there are no consequences to bad actions.  Am I missing your intent?



Atheists make judgement calls on morals grounds all the time, I am saying they have no ground to stand on when making those moral judgements because in their worldview, there is no ground, anything CAN go, not anything WILL go, just that it CAN.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Am I missing your intent?



I seem to be having a tough time getting some to understand my intent in the last day or so.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

Here is a hypothetical...
I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I too beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.  Therefore its all good!


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I seem to be having a tough time getting some to understand my intent in the last day or so.



There are two angles at play here, which might be causing the confusion.

1. There is no god, morals are strickly a biological, evolutionary process.

2.  God is real, morals come from him alone.

I don't think the two can mix.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Let's go with a hypothetical situation.
> 
> And before anybody decideds to start ranting and thinking for me and putting words in my mouth, THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK ABOUT ALL ATHEISTS. I BELIEVE ATHEISTS HAVE MORALS.
> 
> ...



1. That the person in the hypothetical question is an atheist and brings no value, nor does it change the question.

2. By instinsic, do you mean intrinsic? or instinct? Because chance DNA does have intrinsic value.

-------------------------------------------

I'm going to go ahead and filter out all the red herrings and leading language out.

Tell me, without using a deity or the supernatural, why the following statement is incorrect.

_"It is not immoral to initiate violence against another human being"_


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> ...Tell me, without using a deity or the supernatural, why the following statement is incorrect.
> 
> _"It is not immoral to initiate violence against another human being"_



Because it is conditional.  

Therefore, certain conditions would allow the morality of violence against another human being.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Because it is conditional.
> 
> Therefore, certain conditions would allow the morality of violence against another human being.



I dont quite understand.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I dont quite understand.



If an adult is molesting a child.  Most would agree that an initiation of violence is quite moral under those conditions.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If an adult is molesting a child.  Most would agree that an initiation of violence is quite moral under those conditions.



Defending someone isn't initiating violence, its responding to the initiation of violence.

By the act of molesting a child, the molester has already initiated violence/force.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I dont quite understand.



Think about it.  My answer is far less complicated than your question.

It is "conditional" because certain conditions would allow for morally committing violence against another person. If some one threatens my life or my family, then I am morally now permitted to respond "in kind."


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Defending someone isn't initiating violence, its responding to the initiation of violence.
> 
> By the act of molesting a child, the molester has already initiated violence/force.



Inititiate can also be: "set going."


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Think about it.  My answer is far less complicated than your question.
> 
> It is "conditional" because certain conditions would allow for morally committing violence against another person. If some one threatens my life or my family, then I am morally now permitted to respond "in kind."



sigh, it's not even 'my question' I was just rephrasing the original post to remove the nonsense.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> 2. By instinsic, do you mean intrinsic? or instinct? Because chance DNA does have intrinsic value.


How so?

-------------------------------------------



> Tell me, without using a deity or the supernatural, why the following statement is incorrect.
> 
> _"It is not immoral to initiate violence against another human being"_



Without using God, the statement is not incorrect.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Defending someone isn't initiating violence, its responding to the initiation of violence.
> 
> By the act of molesting a child, the molester has already initiated violence/force.



And the person reacting to the intiation of violence is intiating violence, it's just more violence.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I too beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.  Therefore its all good!



Don't mean to be a jerk, but you can start your own thread if you would like. I would like to keep this thread at one hypothetical.

Will you answer the question?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How so?



DNA holds large values, it holds a genetic history of the organism it came from, it holds vast genetic value, not to mention depending what it is it might be edible


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And the person reacting to the intiation of violence is intiating violence, it's just more violence.



I think you might be confused about the term initiate.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I think you might be confused about the term initiate.



School me, I'm not scared to learn.


----------



## huntfourfun (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> School me, I'm not scared to learn.



Might not be too scared.......but with posts like this I don't think you are capable.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

huntfourfun said:


> Might not be too scared.......but with posts like this I don't think you are capable.



You going to answer the question? Or did you just drop by to insult me?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> School me, I'm not scared to learn.



When you initiate something, you start it, begin it, originate it.

I might initiate a conversation with you, when you spoke back, you wouldn't be initiating a conversation back.

So when someone walks up to you and punches you, they have imitated force, any use of force on your behalf is not an initiation of force, but a response of force.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> When you initiate something, you start it, begin it, originate it.
> 
> I might initiate a conversation with you, when you spoke back, you wouldn't be initiating a conversation back.
> 
> So when someone walks up to you and punches you, they have imitated force, any use of force on your behalf is not an initiation of force, but a response of force.



Gotcha. How long of a time has to go by before it would be considered me initiating violence to the person who hit me?


----------



## huntfourfun (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You going to answer the question? Or did you just drop by to insult me?



Take it however you want......

If you are looking to educate yourself on GON......once again....not a smart move.

I'm not gonna bite.......enjoy.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Gotcha. How long of a time has to go by before it would be considered me initiating violence to the person who hit me?



Until property is restored or no longer in danger.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Until property is restored or no longer in danger.



What if the act of violence is an act of vengance in response to a previous act against a third party where the third party is no longer in danger?  I believe the avenger is the initiator in the second act, and can think of a few scenarios where such action might be justified.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What if the act of violence is an act of vengance in response to a previous act against a third party where the third party is no longer in danger?  I believe the avenger is the initiator in the second act, and can think of a few scenarios where such action might be justified.



Vengeance isn't a justifiable use of force.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think you've found a new low.   I don't think the smilie hides your intentions at all.



I don't think it's any worse than Four's xyz post in the other thread.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Think about it.  My answer is far less complicated than your question.
> 
> It is "conditional" because certain conditions would allow for morally committing violence against another person. If some one threatens my life or my family, then I am morally now permitted to respond "in kind."



Agreed.

Obviously that's true based on the fact we have the right to bear arms and the reasons/conditions behind those who chose to act on that priviledge.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Vengeance isn't a justifiable use of force.



All right, since nobody is going to answer the posed question in the OP, we can use this post.

(Back to my hypothetical atheism)

I can take vengeance whenever I see fit, and I don't have to justify it. So your statement is incorrect.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

huntfourfun said:


> Take it however you want......
> 
> If you are looking to educate yourself on GON......once again....not a smart move.


You should'nt take shots a four like that, he is a smart fella.



> I'm not gonna bite.......enjoy.



I didn't think you would.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't know how to answer it. Could you try a different way of wording the question?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Hoyt Mathews(who posted here a while back, but no longer posts in this sub-forum) posted this....



Hoyt Mathews said:


> I happen to see all existence as absurd and void of objective value, even microwaving children. That isnt to say it is unpleasent, on the contrary. Im just asserting that microwaving a child is no different, logically, than popping popcorn. As an aside, I have a child.
> 
> In my worldview there is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, do's and dont's, etc...
> 
> Evil is something which _you_ claim exist. I make no such claims. In my worldview thngs just happen. There is no necessary purpose or reason behind any of it.



This is the point I am trying to make, it is ok to think like this in an Atheistic worldview. Not all Atheist think like him, but some do, and there is nothing another Atheist can justifiably say to him.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Originally Posted by Hoyt Mathews  
I happen to see all existence as absurd and void of objective value, even microwaving children. That isnt to say it is unpleasent, on the contrary. Im just asserting that microwaving a child is no different, logically, than popping popcorn. As an aside, I have a child.

In my worldview there is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, do's and dont's, etc...

Evil is something which you claim exist. I make no such claims. In my worldview thngs just happen. There is no necessary purpose or reason behind any of it.

*WOW!! If I didn't know better I'd think this is how all atheists feel......unlike ALL of us Christians who act alike according to them.*


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Here is a good example of my point.

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Parable of the Madman (1882) 

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? *How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?* Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. 

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." 

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves. 

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" 


Pay close attention to the part in red.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> ...
> _"It is not immoral to initiate violence against another human being"_



Oh yeah, one other thing.  I was assuming you meant to say, "It is not moral..."  OR "It is immoral..."  

Yours is a double negative


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Hoyt Mathews(who posted here a while back, but no longer posts in this sub-forum) posted this....
> 
> This is the point I am trying to make, it is ok to think like this in an Atheistic worldview. Not all Atheist think like him, but some do, and there is nothing another Atheist can justifiably say to him.



This is more of a nihilist view than an atheist view. Atheism is fairly simple, it doesn't subscribe a way of life, or how to treat people... It's just the rejection of theism, literally just not theists. Does the nihilist philosophy allow oneself to also be an atheist? Sure, but atheism not a very restrictive position.

If you care to read about secular ethics / morality I can recommend a few authors. Stefan Mollenux for one, Sam Harris for another.

I've already sent you a link before about UPB by Mollenux


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> All right, since nobody is going to answer the posed question in the OP, we can use this post.
> 
> (Back to my hypothetical atheism)
> 
> I can take vengeance whenever I see fit, and I don't have to justify it. So your statement is incorrect.



Not an atheist, but regardless, I don't like "hypothetical" questions.  Reason being, as a rule you will get hypothetical answers.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Oh yeah, one other thing.  I was assuming you meant to say, "It is not moral..."  OR "It is immoral..."
> 
> Yours is a double negative



I meant it how i said it  I left it open for sets of ethics that might allow for something being morally neutral. 

So not immoral, means moral if morality is a dichotomy (i actually believe it is...) But if something thinks there is such a thing as moral neutrality, not immoral means either moral, or neutral.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> Not an atheist, but regardless, I don't like "hypothetical" questions.  Reason being, as a rule you will get hypothetical answers.



Yea, I know, but I was having a very hard time getting my point across coming from my position, so I felt that a hypotheical situation my help me with that. I'm still not sure it's working.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, I know, but I was having a very hard time getting my point across coming from my position, so I felt that a hypotheical situation my help me with that. I'm still not sure it's working.



I don't think your going to get an answer that satisfies you.

No matter what an atheist says to justify a position, it will never hold weight to you unless it involves a higher power that sets rules and mediates, right?

There are tons of secular ethical rulesets, utilitarianism, heathenism, etc etc. Naturally none of them claim a divine influence, they're generally backed by pragmatism and/or logic.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> This is more of a nihilist view than an atheist view. Atheism is fairly simple, it doesn't subscribe a way of life, or how to treat people... It's just the rejection of theism, literally just not theists. Does the nihilist philosophy allow oneself to also be an atheist? Sure, but atheism not a very restrictive position.


It is what it is. All atheist are not Nihilists, and I understand that, but it is a position that does fall under an Atheistic worldview.



> If you care to read about secular ethics / morality I can recommend a few authors. Stefan Mollenux for one, Sam Harris for another.
> 
> I've already sent you a link before about UPB by Mollenux


I read a lot of the link us sent me before, there are still assumptions being smuggled in.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't think your going to get an answer that satisfies you.
> 
> No matter what an atheist says to justify a position, it will never hold weight to you unless it involves a higher power that sets rules and mediates, right?


I am trying to show that an atheistic worldview has no water in the glass when it comes to moral assertions.



> There are tons of secular ethical rulesets, utilitarianism, heathenism, etc etc. Naturally none of them claim a divine influence, they're generally backed by pragmatism and/or logic.


Does using logic to come to moral conclusions assume emotions in the equation?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It is what it is. All atheist are not Nihilists, and I understand that, but it is a position that does fall under an Atheistic worldview.



Nihilism is an atheist worldview just like a love for ice cream. Atheism makes no moral claims, nor any claims at all besides the non-existence of a deity.

A Nihilist position and an atheist position can easily co-exist, but so can nearly any other philosophical position that doesnt rely on a deity.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am trying to show that an atheistic worldview has no water in the glass when it comes to moral assertions.



It holds no water because your using theism as a heuristic. You define morality as being granted by god, of course atheism cannot hold water in view.



stringmusic said:


> Does using logic to come to moral conclusions assume emotions in the equation?



Are you referring to a specific rule-set? or just the logic of emotion in general? Emotions are fairly subjective, so its not as easy, but certainly one cannot be sad and not-sad, right? that would be a paradox.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Nihilism is an atheist worldview just like a love for ice cream.* Atheism makes no moral claims*, nor any claims at all besides the non-existence of a deity.



Ah, but Atheists make moral claims. Where do they get these moral absolutes? From logic and practical uses alone?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Are you referring to a specific rule-set? or just the logic of emotion in general? Emotions are fairly subjective, so its not as easy, but certainly one cannot be sad and not-sad, right? that would be a paradox.



Lets take murder,(I think that was the first one in the link).
It gave a logical reason not to kill someone, from what I can remember. How does evolutionary ethics or UPB deal with a murder when logic was set aside and emotions took over?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ah, but Atheists make moral claims. Where do they get these moral absolutes? From logic and practical uses alone?



Atheists make moral claims because they're humans, and humans make moral claims. I'm an atheist, and also a libertarian, but atheism as a philosophy doesn't make political claims, so you can hardly call libertarianism an atheist position.



stringmusic said:


> Lets take murder,(I think that was the first one in the link).
> It gave a logical reason not to kill someone, from what I can remember. How does evolutionary ethics or UPB deal with a murder when logic was set aside and emotions took over?



No, you cannot be held morally accountable for emotions, or thoughts, only actions.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

Would not Hoyt Mathews post be considered sociopathic? 
So, all nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists. 
Are all nihilists sociopaths?
I ask this in all seriousness.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Would not Hoyt Mathews post be considered sociopathic?
> So, all nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.
> Are all nihilists sociopaths?
> I ask this in all seriousness.



He would not nessisarily be sociopathic, although perhaps many nihilists are.

Sociopathic means you dont have empathy. You can be a moral relativist but still feel emapthy


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Sociopathic means you dont have empathy. You can be a moral relativist but still feel emapthy



Are nihlists moral relativists?  I thought their position would be that there are no morals, not that morals are relative.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

I think that this definition of nihilism best matches Hoyt Mathews post - The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Are nihlists moral relativists?  I thought their position would be that there are no morals, not that morals are relative.



The result is the same.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The result is the same.



So in an athiests view (morals being relative), the point is moot? There are no morals?


----------



## Asath (Mar 14, 2012)

“Can a real Atheist tell me why I am wrong?”

Because, in a real, non-hypothetical world which has seen hundreds and hundreds of hypothetical Gods come and go, the truth of morality is that it is an entirely human construct.  Forged out of necessity due to our inherently social/tribal nature and need to gather in groups -- rules needed to be enforced concerning conduct between members of the group, if only to ensure a common survival.  The idea of a common morality, though terribly flexible over the centuries and though still changing and hardly universally agreed even now, far pre-dates the idea of a God as the Giver of these rules.

If you care to learn about it, you will find that in any colony of mutually dependent critters, even among insects, there exists a common ethos of accepted behavior, with misbehaving or non-cooperative members either excluded or killed outright.  Ants have been Saved?  Who knew?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

Atheist commit less crime than religious people. Because of our belief in God, we have to be good.
Atheist are good for nothing!


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> So in an athiests view (morals being relative), the point is moot? There are no morals?



I'm getting a big agrivated that a point i've been trying to impress has not yet made it through anywere.

*Atheism as a stance/position makes no moral claims.*

You're talking about a Nihilist view, not an atheist view.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Can a real Atheist tell me why I am wrong?”
> 
> Because, in a real, non-hypothetical world which has seen hundreds and hundreds of hypothetical Gods come and go, the truth of morality is that it is an entirely human construct.  Forged out of necessity due to our inherently social/tribal nature and need to gather in groups -- rules needed to be enforced concerning conduct between members of the group, if only to ensure a common survival.  The idea of a common morality, though terribly flexible over the centuries and though still changing and hardly universally agreed even now, far pre-dates the idea of a God as the Giver of these rules.
> 
> If you care to learn about it, you will find that in any colony of mutually dependent critters, even among insects, there exists a common ethos of accepted behavior, with misbehaving or non-cooperative members either excluded or killed outright.  Ants have been Saved?  Who knew?



So basically, the person in the hypothetical situation would not be wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm getting a big agrivated that a point i've been trying to impress has not yet made it through anywere.
> 
> *Atheism as a stance/position makes no moral claims.*
> 
> You're talking about a Nihilist view, not an atheist view.



Is the "person" in the OP wrong?


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is the "person" in the OP wrong?



Yes


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> Yes



Why?


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why?



De-ja-vu.. Haven't we gone over my Moral positions?

You've already seen the explanation of it, here is a quick summary


No Positive Moral obligations except from parent to child
Coma patient cannot be immoral
Initiation of force is immoral
Self defence, or retreival of stolen property is moral
Everything is either moral or immoral, morality is the default state
Anything that doesnt require force, or force to avoid is not a moral issue, and is therefore a aesthetic issue (example, being on time, etc) 
Coersion / threat of force is force


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> De-ja-vu.. Haven't we gone over my Moral positions?
> 
> You've already seen the explanation of it, here is a quick summary
> 
> ...



What about all the assumptions in that summary? Take the first one, why is there a moral obligation to my child? 

Initiation of force is immoral? Says who? What point of reference are we using to determine this?


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What about all the assumptions in that summary?



You never pointed any out, you just said they exist



stringmusic said:


> Take the first one, why is there a moral obligation to my child?



Because you chose to create the child, bringing it into the world without there consideration, so you are morally obligated to care for them until they can care for themselves.



stringmusic said:


> Initiation of force is immoral? Says who? What point of reference are we using to determine this?



Baiting


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

free ebook downloads, check out the book if you like, its free.

 Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)
A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> Because you chose to create the child, bringing it into the world without there consideration, so you are morally obligated to care for them until they can care for themselves.


I am morally obligated to care for them because you say so, or a group of people say so? They are simply matter in the form of a human, is there something more I should be aware about that would make me feel obligated to care.




> Baiting


No bait here, honest and I think appropriate questions.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx
> 
> free ebook downloads, check out the book if you like, its free.
> 
> ...



I don't read a ton, I listen to book on my Ipod and Itunes stuff, though, I might download it, I am interested in trying to figure out how people think secular ethics work, because honestly, it completely befuddles me.


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't read a ton, I listen to book on my Ipod and Itunes stuff, though, I might download it, I am interested in trying to figure out how people think secular ethics work, because honestly, it completely befuddles me.



I believe it has an audio book download.


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No bait here, honest and I think appropriate questions.






stringmusic said:


> I am interested in trying to figure out how people think secular ethics work, because honestly, it completely befuddles me.



You're never going to be satisfied, i've said this before. We have different definitions for morality. So we'll talk in circles, ill go on and on about logic and empiricism, and you'll keep saying "but says WHO" 

You define morality as gods will / word... I dont even acknowledge an existence of such thing.

Its like we're both arguing over what color a Baraquila is, but your pointing to a rock, and im pointing to a tree.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> You're never going to be satisfied, i've said this before. We have different definitions for morality. So we'll talk in circles, ill go on and on about logic and empiricism, and you'll keep saying "but says WHO"
> 
> You define morality as gods will / word... I dont even acknowledge an existence of such thing.
> 
> Its like we're both arguing over what color a Baraquila is, but your pointing to a rock, and im pointing to a tree.



I am honestly trying to get to the core of where the definition of morals come from in secular ethics, it seems to be reductionistic, in the sense that you can keep going backwards but never get anywhere.

 I don't mean to be a pest of any sorts with all my questions, and they are not "bait" questions, they're honest.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> I believe it has an audio book download.



I am at work, so I don't want to download things to this computer, is it on Itunes by any chance? If it's not to expensive I'll buy it.


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am honestly trying to get to the core of where the definition of morals come from in secular ethics, it seems to be reductionistic, in the sense that you can keep going backwards but never get anywhere.
> 
> I don't mean to be a pest of any sorts with all my questions, and they are not "bait" questions, they're honest.



Any objective look at secular ethics is certain to be based on two things. 

Empiricism & logic.

If you think about it, those are the only two objective things we have to work with.


----------



## Tvveedie (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> Nihilism is an atheist worldview just like a love for ice cream. Atheism makes no moral claims, nor any claims at all besides the non-existence of a deity.
> 
> A Nihilist position and an atheist position can easily co-exist, but so can nearly any other philosophical position that doesnt rely on a deity.



Vee ah Nihilist, vee beleeve in nuhsing Lebowski


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm getting a big agrivated that a point i've been trying to impress has not yet made it through anywere.
> 
> *Atheism as a stance/position makes no moral claims.*
> 
> You're talking about a Nihilist view, not an atheist view.



Dude - honestly, I am confused. Does the statement in red mean that Atheists don't believe morals exist? That is what it seems like.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

I think Atheists believe morals exist. Theyclearly have morals. It is just they do not use a dis-belief in a God to guide their morals. It is the A#1 example of an individual using his or her self guidance, based off of many things except a God, to deal with every day situations.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think Atheists believe morals exist. Theyclearly have morals. It is just they do not use a dis-belief in a God to guide their morals. It is the A#1 example of an individual using his or her self guidance, based off of many things except a God, to deal with every day situations.



Thanks for that opinion. I think it goes back to a fundamental difference in beliefs about where morals come from.

Atheist morals come from situation, culture, popular and personal opinions, and Christian morals come from what they believe to be the absolute truth.

Situational convienance, or right and wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks for that opinion. I think it goes back to a fundamental difference in beliefs about where morals come from.
> 
> Atheist morals come from situation, culture, popular and personal opinions, and Christian morals come from what they believe to be the absolute truth.
> 
> Situational convienance, or right and wrong.



If a God created everyone(even atheists according to believers) then all the morals would be the same. It shows morals are guided by beliefs and the things you listed above for everyone more than a Supernatural being.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If a God created everyone(even atheists according to believers) then all the morals would be the same. It shows morals are guided by beliefs and the things you listed above for everyone more than a Supernatural being.



All true morals are the same. They are just not recognized by all.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> All true morals are the same. They are just not recognized by all.



Neither recognized by all or agreed upon for their source.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 15, 2012)

My dog has very good morals and ethics. I'm pretty sure he is an atheist. That's partly my fought for not witnessing to him. He is kind, gentle, trustworthy, compassionate, and very loyal. He has more Christian values than a lot of Christians. He has never bitten anyone and want even leave the yard if the gate is left open. I'm sure some of this is learned but not all of it so where did my dog get his morals?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> My dog has very good morals and ethics. I'm pretty sure he is an atheist. That's partly my fought for not witnessing to him. He is kind, gentle, trustworthy, compassionate, and very loyal. He has more Christian values than a lot of Christians. He has never bitten anyone and want even leave the yard if the gate is left open. I'm sure some of this is learned but not all of it so where did my dog get his morals?



Your dog has "dog" morals. They came from God!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Neither recognized by all or agreed upon for their source.



Yes and no. The absolute truth exists whether we recognize it or not. Before you ask, there is no scientific evidence to support this. It is my belief.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes and no. The absolute truth exists whether we recognize it or not. Before you ask, there is no scientific evidence to support this. It is my belief.



Holy Smokes! I am agreeing with you more than once tonight!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Holy Smokes! I am agreeing with you more than once tonight!



YEAH! 
I am losing track of which thread I am on. Gonna turn in, goodnight BH.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> YEAH!
> I am losing track of which thread I am on. Gonna turn in, goodnight BH.



pEAcE OUt sAUErkrAUt!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks for that opinion. I think it goes back to a fundamental difference in beliefs about where morals come from.
> 
> Atheist morals come from situation, culture, popular and personal opinions, and Christian morals come from what they believe to be the absolute truth.
> 
> Situational convienance, or right and wrong.



Christian morals change plenty in the Bible.


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> This is more of a nihilist view than an atheist view. Atheism is fairly simple, it doesn't subscribe a way of life, or how to treat people... It's just the rejection of theism, literally just not theists. Does the nihilist philosophy allow oneself to also be an atheist? Sure, but atheism not a very restrictive position.
> 
> If you care to read about secular ethics / morality I can recommend a few authors. Stefan Mollenux for one, Sam Harris for another.
> 
> I've already sent you a link before about UPB by Mollenux



Does this not make your God ..... Mollenux and Harris ?.... Why does what they say carry any more weight than what Hoyt Mathews says?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Christian morals change plenty in the Bible.



Oh really? Just the Christians? your morals  never change? never have changed? You were born lost and you're still lost and that's it, eh? not even you have the ability to change that? not even God? 
Lord have mercy, Jesus.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Dude - honestly, I am confused. Does the statement in red mean that Atheists don't believe morals exist? That is what it seems like.



No it means atheism as a stance / philosophy makes no claims about morality.

It would be like me asking you: "as a christian, how do you explain christian love of ice cream"

Christianity has nothing to do with ice cream, it doesnt make sense.

I'm sure plenty of atheists have very firm stances one way or the other concerning morality, but as a group there isn't a position.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> Does this not make your God ..... Mollenux and Harris ?.... Why does what they say carry any more weight than what Hoyt Mathews says?



Eh? I'm an atheist....

If you define god as a homo-sapiens philosopher that has developed a logically consistent, secular moral theory.. then sure!

It carries more weight because its a rational / logically consistent way of validating moral rules. Verses a nihilist rant.

I find it odd that theists tend to try to label ordinary things as god when talking to atheists. I've heard evolution referred to god, science referred to god, logic referred to god, and now a couple of normal guys. Is this a way to attempt to turn an atheist into a theist? By trying to give them a non-conventional god so they can't claim to be atheist anymore?


----------



## BrowningFan (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> Eh? I'm an atheist....
> 
> If you define god as a homo-sapiens philosopher that has developed a logically consistent, secular moral theory.. then sure!
> 
> ...



I'm a little confused you say it's rational/logically consistent according to what standard? You have  to be measuring again something ,as an atheist it can't be man's Law.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

BrowningFan said:


> I'm a little confused you say it's rational/logically consistent according to what standard?



You're asking by what standard is logic valid?



BrowningFan said:


> You have  to be measuring again something ,as an atheist it can't be man's Law.



I have no idea what your talking about. I assume you mean measuring against something. That something is reality.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh really? Just the Christians? your morals  never change? never have changed? You were born lost and you're still lost and that's it, eh? not even you have the ability to change that? not even God?
> Lord have mercy, Jesus.



Yes, my morals have changed.  They changed from when I was a child to an adolescent, from an adolescent to a young adult,  from a young adult to a parent and from a believer to a non-believer.

You may not think it this way, but when you call me 'lost' you are making a finger pointing accusation.  If I may make an observation, I see believers as deluded, manipulated and duped.  So much so that they will talk about giant fishes, talking donkeys and resurrections as if they were real and not made up when in their gut they know its impossible.  If those stories were in anything but the Bible you would call them silly.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I am trying to show that an atheistic worldview has no water in the glass when it comes to moral assertions.



I'm afraid you'll have to try harder to make your case.

I am a bit disappointed in the responses coming from the atheist side. Your question is a fair one. 

I would recommend you read the essay by Elizabeth Anderson titled If God is Dead, is Everything Permitted?

The entire essay is relevant to this topic but here is the portion that is the meat of the answer to your question.



> It follows that we cannot appeal to God to underwrite the authority of morality. How, then, can I answer the moralistic challenge to atheism, that without God moral rules lack any authority? I say: the authority of moral rules lies not with God, but with each of us. We each have moral authority with respect to one another. This authority is, of course, not absolute. No one has the authority to order anyone else to blind obedience. Rather, each of us has the authority to make claims on others, to call upon people to heed our interests and concerns. Whenever we lodge a complaint, or otherwise lay a claim on others' attention and conduct, we presuppose our own authority to give others reasons for action that are not dependent on appealing to the desires and preferences they already have. But whatever grounds we have for assuming our own authority to make claims is equally well possessed by anyone who we expect to heed our own claims. For, in addressing others as people to whom our claims are justified, we acknowledge them as judges of claims, and hence as moral authorities. Moral rules spring from our practices of reciprocal claim making, in which we work out together the kinds of considerations that count as reasons that all of us must heed, and thereby devise rules for living together peacefully and cooperatively, on a basis of mutual accountability.
> 
> What of someone who refuses to accept such accountability? Doesn't this possibility vindicate Craig's worry, that without some kind of higher authority external to humans, moral claims amount to nothing more than assertions of personal preference, backed up by power? No. We deal with people who refuse accountability by restraining and deterring their objectionable behavior. Such people have no proper complaint against this treatment. For, in the very act of lodging a complaint, they address others as judges of their claims, and thereby step into the very system of moral adjudication that demands their accountability.
> 
> I am arguing that morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim mak- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ing, in which everyone is accountable to everyone else, does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority. It is underwritten by the authority we all have to make claims on one another. Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it. For divine command theories of morality may make believers feel entitled to look only to their idea of God to determine what they are justified in doing. It is all too easy under such a system to ignore the complaints of those injured by one's actions, since they are not acknowledged as moral authorities in their own right. But to ignore the complaints of others is to deprive oneself of the main source of infor- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -mation one needs to improve one's conduct. Appealing to God, rather than those affected by one's actions, amounts to an attempt to escape accountability to one's fellow human beings.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> No it means atheism as a stance / philosophy makes no claims about morality.
> 
> It would be like me asking you: "as a christian, how do you explain christian love of ice cream"
> 
> ...



Thanks Four, I understand better now. I think it means "leave morality up to the individual". Is that correct?

For the strict human "definition" of morality, I think that is true to a point. It is dependant on culture, era, etc. But for the absolute truth, no matter if you believe it exists or not, I would say it is not up to individual. The absolute truth is what I would consider to be "morality".

Does that make me crazy?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I'm afraid you'll have to try harder to make your case.
> 
> I am a bit disappointed in the responses coming from the atheist side. Your question is a fair one.
> 
> ...



Where you been Atlas? No matter, I am glad you are back!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks Four, I understand better now. I think it means "leave morality up to the individual". Is that correct?
> 
> For the strict human "definition" of morality, I think that is true to a point. It is dependant on culture, era, etc. But for the absolute truth, no matter if you believe it exists or not, I would say it is not up to individual. The absolute truth is what I would consider to be "morality".
> 
> Does that make me crazy?



If you are suggesting that The Absolute Truth comes from the God you believe in, do we learn those Morals by following his commands and actions in the Bible?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Where you been Atlas? No matter, I am glad you are back!



Thanks Ted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you are suggesting that The Absolute Truth comes from the God you believe in, do we learn those Morals by following his commands and actions in the Bible?



Yes, I am suggesting that, despite your copy and paste job. I cannot answer every verse you quote out of context, or in context. I am just not that smart.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, I am suggesting that, despite your copy and paste job. I cannot answer every verse you quote out of context, or in context. I am just not that smart.



Ted, whether you can answer those or not has nothing to do with the Morals displayed by your God. Are we supposed to follow his lead or were we made with even higher morals than he displays? Do as I say, not as I do?
Actually I think you are THAT smart. Because it would be smart to avoid trying to explain the moral actions of your God as described in context in the Bible.
You and String can say whatever you want about morals, who possesses them and how we got them but the scripture you each follow tells us all we need to know.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Where you been Atlas? No matter, I am glad you are back!



X2


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ted, whether you can answer those or not has nothing to do with the Morals displayed by your God. Are we supposed to follow his lead or were we made with even higher morals than he displays? Do as I say, not as I do?



We cannot do as He does. We are different beings than He is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> We cannot do as He does. We are different beings than He is.



We are held to much higher standards.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Yes, my morals have changed.  They changed from when I was a child to an adolescent, from an adolescent to a young adult,  from a young adult to a parent and from a believer to a non-believer.
> 
> You may not think it this way, but when you call me 'lost' you are making a finger pointing accusation.*Oh I see, ok for some to deem you lost but not me, eh? why am I surprised? Didn't I just say in another post that I didn't think you are destined to be lost. You've got double standards for different people who post on here, ya know? *  If I may make an observation, I see believers as deluded, manipulated and duped.  So much so that they will talk about giant fishes, talking donkeys and resurrections as if they were real and not made up when in their gut they know its impossible.  If those stories were in anything but the Bible you would call them silly.



I didn't expect it to be possible for a virgin to be able to give birth, but come to find out, it is possible. Never know what else we'll find out. My cat can talk....not as well as a donkey but she can talk.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We are held to much higher standards.



I think I understand. He can do whatever He wants (supreme being). We cannot compare the standards of our behavior to His. This may seem unfair. It is what it is.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Yes, my morals have changed.  They changed from when I was a child to an adolescent, from an adolescent to a young adult,  from a young adult to a parent and from a believer to a non-believer.
> 
> You may not think it this way, but when you call me 'lost' you are making a finger pointing accusation.  If I may make an observation, I see believers as deluded, manipulated and duped.  So much so that they will talk about giant fishes, talking donkeys and resurrections as if they were real and not made up when in their gut they know its impossible.  If those stories were in anything but the Bible you would call them silly.



I see non-believers as deluded, manipulated and duped.

Back to the Pee Wee Herman arguement (I know you are, but what am I).

My fault this time!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I think I understand. He can do whatever He wants (supreme being). We cannot compare the standards of our behavior to His. This may seem unfair. It is what it is.



Then what are the Absolute Morals we were designed with? If we cannot use God's actions as our example and we cannot use God's commands as our example where is our guide?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then what are the Absolute Morals we were designed with? If we cannot use God's actions as our example and we cannot use God's commands as our example where is our guide?



God's commands are our guide. God's actions are our guide.

Now, your examples of God behaving imorrally in war, punishment, whatever, would not apply to us because he is the Supreme Being.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 17, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> God's commands are our guide. God's actions are our guide.
> 
> Now, your examples of God behaving imorrally in war, punishment, whatever, would not apply to us because he is the Supreme Being.



So his commands and actions are our guide as long as they fit our interpretation of morals, otherwise he is god he can do what he wants and it doesnt effect us...???Wh


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 17, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> God's commands are our guide. God's actions are our guide.
> 
> Now, your examples of God behaving imorrally in war, punishment, whatever, would not apply to us because he is the Supreme Being.



Mad rationalization skillz.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2012)

I know many Christians that claim to get their morals from the Bible but I've never in my life met one where that was really the case.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Mad rationalization skillz.



A compliment from the Master of rationalization himself!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> So his commands and actions are our guide as long as they fit our interpretation of morals, otherwise he is god he can do what he wants and it doesnt effect us...???Wh



Not exactly. His commands are our guide. His actions are also, provided He intends them to be such. I doubt God brought plaques on to the Egyptians and said to Himself, "My followers will know they are supposed to do this too."

Our interpretation of morals is not rellevant.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I know many Christians that claim to get their morals from the Bible but I've never in my life met one where that was really the case.



Do you mean that they (the Christians) weren't perfect? That would be correct, not perfect.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> God's commands are our guide. God's actions are our guide.



It shows.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It shows.



Nice, quote half of my post and make a snooty remark.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Nice, quote half of my post and make a snooty remark.





ted_BSR said:


> Originally Posted by ted_BSR View Post
> God's commands are our guide. God's actions are our guide.
> 
> Now, your examples of God behaving imorrally in war, punishment, whatever, would not apply to us because he is the Supreme Being.



Being you had them separate, I replied to the one that I wanted to reply to as it pertained to what I was talking about. My answer was not snooty, it was short, precise, and to the point. I can see why mankind acts as it does if we use God's commands and God's actions as examples for us to get our Morals from. And in many times, Supreme Being or NOT, his commands and actions are downright appalling examples at best. Please do not make excuses for him. Please do not tell me where and how we get our Morals and then pick and choose which Morals your God should take credit for and which horrific Morals your God gets a free pass on.
You want to excuse morals about war and punishment, but the "whatever" you vaguely allude to contains incest,rape,slavery and outright murder within his commands and actions. If you want to give him a free pass in your mind rather than hold him accountable, go right ahead, but your going to have to come up with a better excuse to excuse your God of these atrocities to change some minds in here.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I'm afraid you'll have to try harder to make your case.
> 
> I am a bit disappointed in the responses coming from the atheist side. Your question is a fair one.
> 
> ...



The article makes a great point, I have read some interesting and persuasive arguments for secular ethics over the last couple of weeks.

There seem to be some pretty sneaky assumptions that are being smuggled in, in most of the info I am reading, and I am finding that to be the main problem with secular ethics . Such as "I say: the authority of moral rules lies not with God, but with each of us. We each have moral authority with respect to one another." We can't just assume that. While I agree with the premise, one cannot just assume that a universal intrinsic moral authority lays with every human. There has to be a reference point in which we can look to, to be able to gain any authority.


----------



## WELLS8230 (Mar 19, 2012)

Wow!


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The article makes a great point, I have read some interesting and persuasive arguments for secular ethics over the last couple of weeks.
> 
> The assumptions that are smuggled in are the main problem I am finding. Such as "I say: the authority of moral rules lies not with God, but with each of us. We each have moral authority with respect to one another." We can't just assume that. While I agree with the premise, one cannot just assume that a universal intrinsic moral authority lays with every human. There has to be a reference point in which we can look to, to be able to gain any authority.



Why? There are almost 5 billion people on this planet, with a plethora of beliefs, and gods.  I know you'd have us pick you god as a reference but to get everyone to assert your god as the absolute moral authority is not only impracticle but impossible.  Assigning humans as moral authority, not only gives accountability, but allows us to come closer to an absolute that you are so desperatly seeking.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 19, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Not exactly. His commands are our guide. His actions are also, provided He intends them to be such. I doubt God brought plaques on to the Egyptians and said to Himself, "My followers will know they are supposed to do this too."
> 
> Our interpretation of morals is not rellevant.



If I ever need someone to tell me what gods intentions are I know where to come and who to seek out! How christian of you to think you know gods intentions...WOW.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Mar 19, 2012)

Try reading Proverbs regularly. It's amazing how the WORD of God can enlighten one who hasn't even figured out he's the creature the CREATOR wrote the letter for, ...yet.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Being you had them separate, I replied to the one that I wanted to reply to as it pertained to what I was talking about. My answer was not snooty, it was short, precise, and to the point. I can see why mankind acts as it does if we use God's commands and God's actions as examples for us to get our Morals from. And in many times, Supreme Being or NOT, his commands and actions are downright appalling examples at best. Please do not make excuses for him. Please do not tell me where and how we get our Morals and then pick and choose which Morals your God should take credit for and which horrific Morals your God gets a free pass on.
> You want to excuse morals about war and punishment, but the "whatever" you vaguely allude to contains incest,rape,slavery and outright murder within his commands and actions. If you want to give him a free pass in your mind rather than hold him accountable, go right ahead, but your going to have to come up with a better excuse to excuse your God of these atrocities to change some minds in here.



Sorry BH, I took as directed only at me, I see what you meant now. I guess I am a little jaded about personal attacks on here. Anyway, my fault for taking it personally.

I have no authority to excuse anyone or anything, except my 2 year old.

I have no authority to issue God His free pass, or to hold Him accountable.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why? There are almost 5 billion people on this planet, with a plethora of beliefs, and gods.  I know you'd have us pick you god as a reference but to get everyone to assert your god as the absolute moral authority is not only impracticle but impossible.  Assigning humans as moral authority, not only gives accountability, but allows us to come closer to an absolute that you are so desperatly seeking.



I disagree, I think many varied interpretations of what is moral would  take it further away from an absolute.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> If I ever need someone to tell me what gods intentions are I know where to come and who to seek out! How christian of you to think you know gods intentions...WOW.



Really? That is what you got out of my post? I can't help you dude. In fact, welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Do you mean that they (the Christians) weren't perfect? That would be correct, not perfect.



I've known lots of christians that thought polygamy was a sin, none who thought slavery was moral. According to the bible, they've got it wrong on both counts.


----------



## Four (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I've known lots of christians that thought polygamy was a sin, none who thought slavery was moral. According to the bible, they've got it wrong on both counts.



This goes along with the It's about time, Part II thread.

Culture is changing morality, and the religions are adapting.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The article makes a great point, I have read some interesting and persuasive arguments for secular ethics over the last couple of weeks.
> 
> There seem to be some pretty sneaky assumptions that are being smuggled in, in most of the info I am reading, and I am finding that to be the main problem with secular ethics . Such as "I say: the authority of moral rules lies not with God, but with each of us. We each have moral authority with respect to one another." We can't just assume that. While I agree with the premise, one cannot just assume that a universal intrinsic moral authority lays with every human. There has to be a reference point in which we can look to, to be able to gain any authority.



If we follow your lead then what we end up with is various groups of people claiming to have the moral authority to kill others, none of which are actually more able to prove their case than the other because all of their authorities happen to be invisible beings for which there is no evidence. I think history is clear enough to demonstrate that isn't a good road for humanity to remain on. The framework established in the article is far more honest and rational. We all are in fact moral judges. You make a moral claim you can try to persuade others by convincing them that the source of your moral claim is no mere mortal but you are still engaged in an effort to persuade and by that very fact you are acknowledging the place of other individuals to make judgments on those claims. Even the bible itself is subject to these judgments. Believers can't even agree on moral questions even though they are reading out of the same book.

By the way, if an argument must be made on the basis of authority rather than reason that is evidence of its weakness, not strength.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

I agree with this part:



Four said:


> Culture is changing morality ...



... but I would qualify this:



Four said:


> ... and the religions are adapting.



... by saying that _some_ religions are adapting.  In Christianity, the churches who have adapted to the culture tend to be small and/or dying.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree with this part:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like Joel Osteen's?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Like Joel Osteen's?



Nope.  

When I say "adapted to the culture", I'm talking primarily about the acceptance of homosexuality, even for clergy.  There are other issues, but that's a big one.

If Osteen ever changed his position on that, his church would dry up and blow away, just like the Paulks' church did.  (To be fair, that was certainly not the only problem with the Paulks' church.)


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope.
> 
> When I say "adapted to the culture", I'm talking primarily about the acceptance of homosexuality, even for clergy.  There are other issues, but that's a big one.



That's because there hasn't been enough time since homosexuality became culturally accepted. In fact that process is still happening now. Fifty years from now it won't be nearly the big issue for christians that it is now. They'll come around just like the Mormon church did on race.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> When I say "adapted to the culture", I'm talking primarily about the acceptance of homosexuality, even for clergy.  There are other issues, but that's a big one.



I don't want to switch teams here, and I apologize for the appearance, but isn't that putting an arbitrary designation to the value of sin?  One is greater than the other?

I think we debated this once a long time ago.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That's because there hasn't been enough time since homosexuality became culturally accepted. In fact that process is still happening now. Fifty years from now it won't be nearly the big issue for christians that it is now. They'll come around just like the Mormon church did on race.



You are so off base on that, it's not even funny.

OK, I changed my mind.  It is funny.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't want to switch teams here, and I apologize for the appearance, but isn't that putting an arbitrary designation to the value of sin?  One is greater than the other?



I'm just saying that it's a major sticking point, as opposed to something like worship style.  My point was not to assign a ranking system to sin.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm just saying that it's a major sticking point, as opposed to something like worship style.  My point was not to assign a ranking system to sin.



Cool.  And yes, it has caused a large amount of disagreement within specific denominations.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 27, 2012)

holy cow...


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You are so off base on that, it's not even funny.
> 
> OK, I changed my mind.  It is funny.



Right. And the many reversals of christian dogmas through the years that coincided with secular cultural changes were just happenstance. Nothing at all to do with religious leaders realizing they had lost the battle for minds and adapting with the times. And of course this never happened in the early church either.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

Homosexuality is far more accepted in our society today than it was 50 years ago. You really don't think that trend will continue into the next 50 years? So what is the church going to do when they are trying to survive in such a society? Of course there will still be some hard liners around but they will be viewed with the same ridicule that the Westboro Baptist Church is.

But... I would love to be wrong about churches adapting.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Right. And the many reversals of christian dogmas through the years that coincided with secular cultural changes were just happenstance. Nothing at all to do with religious leaders realizing they had lost the battle for minds and adapting with the times. And of course this never happened in the early church either.




I'll rephrase my previous statement:  the churches who have accepted homosexuality tend to be small and/or dying.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So what is the church going to do when they are trying to survive in such a society?



C'mon. 

The church survived with the entire Roman Empire aligned against them.  The church survived in the Soviet Union despite having priests replaced with KGB informants.  The church survives underground in China today.

Be serious.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> But ... I would love to be wrong about churches adapting.



Well, break out the champagne!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That's because there hasn't been enough time since homosexuality became culturally accepted. In fact that process is still happening now. Fifty years from now it won't be nearly the big issue for christians that it is now. They'll come around just like the Mormon church did on race.


I would have to agree with this. I think 25 years from now people will think our views on homosexuality were strange just as my kids think my generations views on blacks were strange. Just like i think my Dad's views on women's rights were strange.
If you don't think Churches follow morality changes, how would you explain all the large churches that don't preach on homosexuality, women preachers, how you dress, going to restaurants on Sunday, working, hunting, fishing on Sunday, not witnessing, and donating money to help people but not personally helping people?


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree with this part:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the religions that stick around are adapting, even those that adapt have a hard time.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'll rephrase my previous statement:  the churches who have accepted homosexuality tend to be small and/or dying.



Name the church and I'll bet it was small and dying to begin with.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> C'mon.
> 
> The church survived with the entire Roman Empire aligned against them.  The church survived in the Soviet Union despite having priests replaced with KGB informants.  The church survives underground in China today.
> 
> Be serious.



Sure and that is about all they will do if they don't adapt. Do you think the Mormon church would be as large as it is today if it still espoused the same racist views that it used to? Or the catholic church if they were still going about warning about witches cursing villages and causing disease and famine? Perhaps all churches should go on the same moral crusade as their Westboro brethren and see how that works out for them. Who's kidding who here?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would have to agree with this. I think 25 years from now people will think our views on homosexuality were strange just as my kids think my generations views on blacks were strange. Just like i think my Dad's views on women's rights were strange.
> If you don't think Churches follow morality changes, how would you explain all the large churches that don't preach on homosexuality, women preachers, how you dress, going to restaurants on Sunday, working, hunting, fishing on Sunday, not witnessing, and donating money to help people but not personally helping people?



When is the last time you saw a church lamenting about rock and roll being the devil's music? Now many play it in their worship services. Talk about adapting.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Sure and that is about all they will do if they don't adapt. Do you think the Mormon church would be as large as it is today if it still espoused the same racist views that it used to? Or the catholic church if they were still going about warning about witches cursing villages and causing disease and famine? Perhaps all churches should go on the same moral crusade as their Westboro brethren and see how that works out for them. Who's kidding who here?



You're exactly right, the catholic church is the best example, being the most popular form of Christianity they're in many respects the most adaptable, they even have there own science department, and not the kind with robotic dinosaurs playing in the pool with humans.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 28, 2012)

Four said:


> You're exactly right, the catholic church is the best example, being the most popular form of Christianity they're in many respects the most adaptable, they even have there own science department ...



... but they still have celibate clergy, they do not ordain women, they do not condone homosexuality, and their stance on birth control is the strictest in all Christianity.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but they still have celibate clergy, they do not ordain women, they do not condone homosexuality, and their stance on birth control is the strictest in all Christianity.



that's why i said "many respects" not all  They still have tons of dumb rules, but considering were they came from, they've changed a lot in order to keep up with the times.

They also do that dumb thing were you can get around all bad rules that haven't caught up to the culture morally, by "going to confession"


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but they still have celibate clergy, they do not ordain women, they do not condone homosexuality, and their stance on birth control is the strictest in all Christianity.



Yes and they get smashed for it in the court of public opinion and are largely ignored on these issues by their own members.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Name the church and I'll bet it was small and dying to begin with.



I don't dispute that entirely.  As I said before, it was certainly true for Earl Paulk's church.  However, condoning homosexuality does not mean the church is in for a growth spurt.  It's usually a catalyst for decline or a split.  Check out this article about the Presbyterians.  The entire article is worth the read, but here are a couple of key paragraphs:

_Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, said that the denomination’s decision “to abandon Christian sexual ethics predictably is fueling accelerated membership decline and schism. Some traditionalists are struggling to stay within the PC(USA) while creating new forms of accountability to compensate for the denomination’s failure....”

... Tooley noted that every denomination, which, like the PCUSA, “has embraced sexual liberation over Christian orthodoxy has similarly faced schism and spiraling membership.”_

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...ans-meet-to-consider-split-from-liberal-pcusa


OTOH, conservative churches dominate this list and will continue to do so.

http://churchrelevance.com/top-71-largest-gigachurches-in-america-2011-edition/


----------

