Atheistic forms of morality

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


You've conveniently left out the fourth, most obvious option: There is a God, but he's not really all that concerned with micromanaginging African births.

I'd put that under the subset of God being evil, since from our perspective its pretty evil to not care about sentient creatures that value their own lives. Now you might argue thats evil to us but not to God, in which case you must posit an imperfect, whimsical, arbitrary God- which grinds against our own interior ability to imagine and conceive of sublime infinite perfection. How could an arbitrary whimsical God create a universe, and all of its bases of knowledge, where a man can easily conceive of absolute perfection- a perfection that is more perfect than the standard of the universe in its own creator?

Then we face the message of the Cross. That God is so concerned with us that He became one of us and not only that, suffered death, crucifixion, and eternal torment in our stead, to deliver us from our own evil cravings and to blot out the sentence of guilt that was declared against us by having Christ pay for those sins which are forgiven. Such is an image of true perfection in conformity with our very being. The crucified one suffering torment and being defamed throughout the universe, and yet through this incredible irony becoming the King of all, putting to spoil all principalities and powers and dominions and wisdoms of men.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


I'd put that under the subset of God being evil, since from our perspective its pretty evil to not care about sentient creatures that value their own lives. Now you might argue thats evil to us but not to God, in which case you must posit an imperfect, whimsical, arbitrary God- which grinds against our own interior ability to imagine and conceive of sublime infinite perfection. How could an arbitrary whimsical God create a universe, and all of its bases of knowledge, where a man can easily conceive of absolute perfection- a perfection that is more perfect than the standard of the universe in its own creator?

I'm struck by your insistance that the only imagineable God is one who gives a damn about us. It's dead easy to imagine a God who doesn't. In fact, a God who doesn't really care about us strikes me as infinitely more perfect that the pathetic Sky-God we worship, since He supposedly cares about this, and has yet absolutely failed to demonstrate that caring in almost 2000 years at least. The Deist God is at least doing what he's suppiosed to be doing; the Sky-God woudl appear to be, in his own terms, a miserable failure.

[Elok]

Well, hopefully Drogue will return soon, I want to hear his answer. In the meantime, though, you guys might want to wikipedia up "presuppositionalism." Just so you know the, uh, unique POV you're dealing with here.

[Flip McWho]

Thats MY explanation.

Good for you. No I'm happy for you. However the point I don't get is why you're so happy to proclaim this to the entire world in such a pigheaded manner when yours is as equally proveable as mine?

And even your conscience will say to you that my explanation is more at peace with who you are. And yes I agree- randomness generally negates order (esp when you start with randomness!)

More at peace with who you are. What can you possibly mean by those words exactly? Thats a nonsensical statment. Referring to the fundamental nature of humanity are we, which is?
Secondly, read what I wrote again. Randomness negates order, excellent, glad we can agree on that. However you seemed to have ignored the part where I said order can arise from randomness though.



Or fourthly, if you reconcile science with God, God has nothing to do with the sickly, disabled children and thus it ain't his fault. Thats a fourth reason to add to the other three. Again all reasons can be applied to god. God only has a benevolent nature because the various books describe God as such. There is no reason that God can't be evil.

They claim to be atheists in theory, but practically they forget they are atheists for most of their day and act as if things really matter and have meaning. This is the most common inconsistency among the infidel.

Are you sure, that its just that you find it hard to believe that people can live and be happy knowing that there is nothing after, or that something other than what you think is after. Your fears do not necessarily extrapolate onto others. By using after, I'm referring to after death. Thats all it is. It's peoples fear of death that leads to "gaining an afterlife" through trying to adher to some sort of "way" to get to said afterlife. Unfortunately, these people always seem to love to spread there message. No matter the fact that its as equally unproveable as any other.

And your usage of the word infidel got me thinking. Whats the difference between your beliefs and someone whose equally as fervount but is a Muslim beliefs? Oh, your is true. Right. Or maybe its part of that stuff you spouted before, about it being bland and uninspiring, you do realise that thats a subjective look made by you? Others will agree, others will disagree. But, unless your subjective view on the world is on par with Gods then it is nothing but your own view on Islam. No proof that one is truer than the other yet.

Now this:

The question is whether you will choose to reason God's thoughts after Him, or whether you will try to liberate your mind as satan desired Adam do, and reason in rebellion to the foundation of the universe- the cornerstone- Christ Jesus.

is an interestingly weird statement. What do you mean by liberate? What do you mean by foundation of the universe? Weird statement.


Berzerker


The annoying thing is that when we do eventually discover another intelligent life somewhere out there, its more like Gods been caught out like the husband cheating on his wife with multiple mistresses, than as firm evidence that God doesn't exist. Of course, assuming we do discover other intelligent life. Even if we it doesn't prove the existence of God. The reason God can never be refuted is because it is based on something entirely deviod of any checks. Faith.

[Flip McWho]

Catching up:

I'd put that under the subset of God being evil, since from our perspective its pretty evil to not care about sentient creatures that value their own lives. Now you might argue thats evil to us but not to God, in which case you must posit an imperfect, whimsical, arbitrary God- which grinds against our own interior ability to imagine and conceive of sublime infinite perfection.

That just all works under the assumption that god gives a hoot about us.

How could an arbitrary whimsical God create a universe, and all of its bases of knowledge, where a man can easily conceive of absolute perfection- a perfection that is more perfect than the standard of the universe in its own creator?

Perfection. Well I'm pretty sure that my absolute perfection wouldn't be the same as yours, nor anyone elses here. Of course my absolute perfection would change from time to time as different things took my fancy. Of course this absolute perfection you refer to is utter nonsense.

By letting those sick children die and disabled children being born God is not being arbitrary and definitely not whimsical. Those children get sick because of whatever natural reason they do so, they are born disabled because of whatever natural reason they are so. Unfortunate? Sure. Anything to do with God? No. Yet they are happening for anything but whimsically. They are happening because of whatever natural reasons cause them.

Basically we're stuck with the why. You believe in God because you believe in Gods afterlife. You do the right stuff you think will get you there. You get there because thats the point of existence. Except it doesn't really answer that question. Whats Gods point. Of course, God doesn't have a point, God's God, doesn't need a point.


With the morality thing it seems to revolve around why.
Why should we do moral things if we could do a immoral thing and nobody found out about it. For example finding a wallet with $100 cash, no ID or anything else. Do you keep it or hand it in? There is no practical reason (other than judgement day) to not take the money. Its obviously stealing. But if you won't get caught why not?
a) because of a God keeping tabs on you. (hell)
b) Reciprocation. You'd like it if other people did that (even though if I lost a hundred bucks I don't think I'd report to the cops, the chances of it turning up are probably close to nil)
c)The benefit of society (it's only this once though, surely, $100, get you a few nice things).
Which options the best for a moral system?

[Berzerker]

Philo

True but look at the universe. We have children who are born disabled and sickly in Africa for example, without a hope in the world. There are three explanations for this misery- God is evil, there is no God, or God allows evil to bring about the greater good (which is the conquest of evil and the proclamation of His Own Glory which is the greatest good since God is the highest value).

People suffer so God can achieve some greater good? Sounds like a slave owner. There is a 4th option - God can't do much of anything about evil (we're born sinners), much less hurricanes. God set things in motion but doesn't exert control over what happens here. Doesn't the Bible say Satan reigns on Earth? Satan offered Jesus some control and he declined the offer, but he did not say Satan's offer was fraudulent. just that he had a better deal.

Berzerker, in the Gospel of John Jesus declares to the people that His name is "I AM"; and that "before Abraham was, I AM". I AM is the name of God, which was revealed to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus. Also, the entire crucifixion of Christ would be worthless if He were not God, since the value of his blood would be that of one man, whereas His redemption is only of infinite worth if He was also completely God. Finally, Christ forgave sins, healed, and read minds, and also described Himself coming back to judge the living and the dead- all attributes of God.

I'll need the ch/vs, all I can find is Jesus claiming to be "I am" in a metaphorical sense. But here's a quote I stumbled across: John 6:38

For I have come down from Heaven, not to do my own will,
but the will of him who sent me

There are countless examples of Jesus referring to God as someone else.

Gepap

The fact we are social beings means that our morality exists for the purpose of protecting this set up- the group. The group inculcates its members- it trains them in the behavior it finds helpful to itself.

The group inculcates and trains etc but it does not create individual conscience or morality. We all judge the group based on our own standards and if we are brave enough, we tell the group when it has crossed the line. Your sense of right and wrong did not come from the group, it came from your conscience and the group's efforts to mold it to their liking. Would you declare murder moral just because a majority of your group said it was moral? It would take alot of group think to overcome your conscience.

The opponents of slavery argued their opposition of the practice based on new ideolgies that challanged the conception of what behavior was bestf or the group to follow.

Huh? Freedom was the cause of emancipation, not "it isnt good for the group".

As I said, humans can think up a lot of new things- this is the gift of intellect. So individuals can imagine new behaviors and create reasons why the group should follow them. But the change is slow, as these new behaviors have to infiltrate the group and gain adherents. The group remains paramount thought, as one individual's moral actions are meaningless unless they gain further acceptence. If people opposed to slavery simply abstained form slavery themselves, slavery would still be around. Only by trying to put peer pressure and train new people can this new moral movement make any change. It remains therefore a social situation.

Does group slavery (or genocide) disprove your argument that the group defines morality?

[Odin]

This fundy guy HAS to be on something, or else he's insane.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The group inculcates and trains etc but it does not create individual conscience or morality. We all judge the group based on our own standards and if we are brave enough, we tell the group when it has crossed the line. Your sense of right and wrong did not come from the group, it came from your conscience and the group's efforts to mold it to their liking. Would you declare murder moral just because a majority of your group said it was moral? It would take alot of group think to overcome your conscience.=

Of course the group created morality. Murder is the perfect example- while you continually refuse to accept the definition of that word, murder mean ulawful killing- meaning, only certaun types of killing are murder. Many others are fine, if not celebrated. IF morality were simply some product of individuals- why make such a definition?

And wehat about adultery? Should not individuals be allowed to leave a contract they entered into voluntarilly? Then why deny them the ability? For the sake of the group/

Huh? Freedom was the cause of emancipation, not "it isnt good for the group".

??

The arguement against slavery was not "FREEDOM", but "justice", and "christian love" and the "equality of man." The arguement being, the group was "damned" in some absolutist plane, if it kept following the unrighteous path.

Does group slavery (or genocide) disprove your argument that the group defines morality?

Not at all. After all, only another GROUP could carry it out. Genocide is simply an end result of the human ability to rationalize new mores. IF a group of people is a threat to your group, then what is more right than the utter extermination of that people? If your group is superior to another, for whatever reason, and the enslavement of that toher gorup can further your group's growth, then is it not immoral to allow your group to be weak by not enslaving?

[Flip McWho]

This fundy guy HAS to be on something, or else he's insane.

Now the really funny thing is, I am, but this guy probably is not.

[Berzerker]

Of course the group created morality. Murder is the perfect example- while you continually refuse to accept the definition of that word, murder mean ulawful killing- meaning, only certaun types of killing are murder. Many others are fine, if not celebrated. IF morality were simply some product of individuals- why make such a definition?

Does the conscience enter the picture at any point in your theory? How do you explain your lack of agreement with the group on various issues if you got your morality from the group? And yes, I believe states murder people. The fact its "legal" dont mean squat to me. But I shall try to remember this distinction matters to others.

And wehat about adultery? Should not individuals be allowed to leave a contract they entered into voluntarilly? Then why deny them the ability? For the sake of the group/

Adultery is not leaving a contract, it is violating a contract.

The arguement against slavery was not "FREEDOM", but "justice", and "christian love" and the "equality of man." The arguement being, the group was "damned" in some absolutist plane, if it kept following the unrighteous path.

According to Frederick Douglas, freedom (emancipation) was the cause. If one is chained, remove the chains. If someone has locked me in a cage, open the door and let me out. Then we can talk about justice and brotherly love. Thats freedom, baby... You're citing peripheral arguments as if freedom was an alien concept to the enslaved.

Not at all. After all, only another GROUP could carry it out. Genocide is simply an end result of the human ability to rationalize new mores. IF a group of people is a threat to your group, then what is more right than the utter extermination of that people? If your group is superior to another, for whatever reason, and the enslavement of that toher gorup can further your group's growth, then is it not immoral to allow your group to be weak by not enslaving?

Why introduce caveats to my question? If the majority in your group says its moral to exterminate or enslave another group, and you disagree, where did your morality come from since it didn't come from your group?

[Berzerker]

We as individuals enter the group with our own conscience, our own morality. The group, depending on how decisions are made, compare how the individual members of the group view the morality of a given issue, and then ostensibly act on the data. When asked how each member felt about an issue, they all didn't say - let the group decide. Some may abstain but most will have an opinion. Group morality is merely the competing opinions of at least two subgroups.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Does the conscience enter the picture at any point in your theory? How do you explain your lack of agreement with the group on various issues if you got your morality from the group? And yes, I believe states murder people. The fact its "legal" dont mean squat to me. But I shall try to remember this distinction matters to others.

Individual conscience =/ morality. Morality is a shared code of conduct by which people behave. And stop saying "legal murder"-there is no such thing- by definition, muder is always illegal. Your continued use of that construction just proves loin's point of how language codifies morality. In reality, there is no such thing as legal murder. You can have justifieable homicide, but then, that is not murder. And as Loin said, in the control of language you control morality.

Adultery is not leaving a contract, it is violating a contract.

Where in the vow is a promise for total sexual exclusivity?

According to Frederick Douglas, freedom (emancipation) was the cause. If one is chained, remove the chains. If someone has locked me in a cage, open the door and let me out. Then we can talk about justice and brotherly love. Thats freedom, baby... You're citing peripheral arguments as if freedom was an alien concept to the enslaved.

NO, freedom is not an alien concept to the enslaved/ but the enslaved did not free themselves, now did they? They were freed by someone else, and the question is, what motivated them to act to free.

Why introduce caveats to my question? If the majority in your group says its moral to exterminate or enslave another group, and you disagree, where did your morality come from since it didn't come from your group?

Your morality comes form the same place-the code nd basic precepts are the same-the difference comes in the application. You might not allow yourself to transfer the concept of self-protection to the scale of human groupings, meaning that mass killing for the purpose of the protection of the group loses sense.

The difference is not in terms, or even in basicly stating what is fundamentally wrong-its a difference in when that applies, and what it really means.

Nazi's had laws against murder. If one aryan killed another, he would pay. But subhumans were outside the protection of law. Therefore, killing them was not murder. Its not that Nazis did not believe murder wrong, its that they refuted the humanity of subhumans.

[Berzerker]

Individual conscience =/ morality.

Conscience is the word we use to describe the process by which one eventually feels remorse for doing a bad thing. The assumption inherent in the word is a recognition of immorality, hence conscience does = morality.

Morality is a shared code of conduct by which people behave.

You're ignoring the process by which the group comes to adopt this moral code, it starts with individuals stating their opinions about morality on relevant issues. It starts with individuals offering their own view of morality.

And stop saying "legal murder"-there is no such thing- by definition, muder is always illegal.

No, and you cant stop me

And yet various governments have murdered millions with "legal" immunity. I'd call that legalised murder.

Your continued use of that construction just proves loin's point of how language codifies morality. In reality, there is no such thing as legal murder. You can have justifieable homicide, but then, that is not murder. And as Loin said, in the control of language you control morality.

Hitler was a murderer, Mao was a murderer, Saddam is a murderer. I dont care if it was "legal", its still murder. The laws reflect what were considered crimes before the law came into existence. Government adopted a prohibition on murder based on existing sentiments, it did not invent the notion that unjustifiable and intentional homicide is wrong and should not be allowed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Conscience is the word we use to describe the process by which one eventually feels remorse for doing a bad thing. The assumption inherent in the word is a recognition of immorality, hence conscience does = morality.

Except tha what is "bad" is not made form thin air-the idea has to enter the mind. And how does it do that? Through training (education), and who educates? The group does.

It is the fact that humans are capable of abstract thought that allows them to take the training and then modify it internally, which allows each individual to have a different conception of the same precepts

You're ignoring the process by which the group comes to adopt this moral code, it starts with individuals stating their opinions about morality on relevant issues. It starts with individuals offering their own view of morality.

This is wrong. Individuals NEVER existed outside of the group. When did YOU get the chance to air your moral believes and then get this agreement? What makes you think that individuals with different power bases would even listen to the weak bellow them? Can you really even imagine this actually working? You might was well try to get a party of 20 people to chose a single pizza topping

And yet various governments have murdered millions with "legal" immunity. I'd call that legalised murder.

Why can;t you simplt say KILLED? the word is completely accurate. I can guess why though, you have an attachment to the implied morality of murder, and hence can;t stop using the term.

Hitler was a murderer, Mao was a murderer, Saddam is a murderer. I dont care if it was "legal", its still murder. The laws reflect what were considered crimes before the law came into existence. Government adopted a prohibition on murder based on existing sentiments, it did not invent the notion that unjustifiable and intentional homicide is wrong and should not be allowed.

By the very addition of "justifiable" you ruin your entire point. Anything can be justified. You can very well argue that without Stalins massive and bloody reforms, his mass use of slave labor, work camps, the collectivization of farming leading to millions of deaths, the Soviets would have never been able to defeat Hitler's Germany, and Nazi Germany and its ideology would have come to dominate western Eurasia. Was Satlin then not justified in his attempts to modernize the USSR at all costs?

Oh, and again, group exists before the individual-humans are social apes, after all.

[Berzerker]

Where in the vow is a promise for total sexual exclusivity?

You're being silly

NO, freedom is not an alien concept to the enslaved/ but the enslaved did not free themselves, now did they?

So what? If I am chained and you remove the chains, I am free, true?

They were freed by someone else, and the question is, what motivated them to act to free.

It wasn't the group's morality, it was their own.

Your morality comes form the same place-the code nd basic precepts are the same-the difference comes in the application. You might not allow yourself to transfer the concept of self-protection to the scale of human groupings, meaning that mass killing for the purpose of the protection of the group loses sense.

The difference is not in terms, or even in basicly stating what is fundamentally wrong-its a difference in when that applies, and what it really means.

Nazi's had laws against murder. If one aryan killed another, he would pay. But subhumans were outside the protection of law. Therefore, killing them was not murder. Its not that Nazis did not believe murder wrong, its that they refuted the humanity of subhumans.

Why do I get the impression I'm debating John Kerry? Can I just get an answer please