Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you know "the decalogue" is valid? Because it matches your moral intuition.First, these principles are universal and self-evident to many, not all.
My moral instincts are universal and self-evident to many and exist without any endorsement.
More than this, what is necessary for these principles to be true. The biblical God fits the checkoff box.
The only thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to be considered true is CONSENSUS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings.
How do you know the "revelation" is moral?
Like, what would you think of a "revelation" that suggested you murder your son?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]Very nice! Good point!
Why would "YHWH" make special rules for foreign servants and then say that foreigners should be treated as native-born?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Then, after 10 min when Krom gives up, and walks away, Jakie approaches the tires. He removes the six tires one by one, grabs the tire Krom liked, and brings it to him, carefully, without losing water.
Great example.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings.
It's a pretty good demonstration that not all Christians agree on the practical application of Christian moral code.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Christian beings coin biblical moral values but they cannot justify Christian morals as anything but subjective feelings or preference.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
My standard is not myself.
Didn't you choose your standard?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.This claim is unfalsifiable.Not for those who are true believers.
You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.
Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
But if you reject (or simply ignore) BRAHMAN (or NOUMENON), a necessary being, what is the objective standard of appeal?
You don't have one.
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.
It becomes a preference.
EXACTLY LIKE YOUR PREFERENCE IN YOUR CHOICE OF GOD($).
Your "justification" of your GOD($) is de facto "justification" for your ("invisible") moral code.
(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a de facto OPINION.
It becomes a preference.
Just like your preference for a particular god($).
How does what you like (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?
Well, I certainly wouldn't trust you to tell me my likes and dislikes.
It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.
The decalogue doesn't resolve these disagreements.
(IFF) everyone agreed on the one-true-interpretation and practical application of the moral code of "YHWH" (THEN) we'd all be Orthodox Jews
How can you distinguish what is better without this best?
Quite easily.
Start at the "worst" and take it one step at a time.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You see, if you deny God's moral commands then life becomes unlivable.
Not quite.
My breath would seem to contradict your claim.
You see, if you deny god($) moral commands then you are forced to THINK FOR YOURSELF AND NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.Moral intuition?Logically coherent? Sure, go ahead. I don't believe you can without God, so prove me wrong.
The critical conceit here is your claim that you follow a universal, unchanging moral code.
The decalogue is NOT unchanging. It is interpreted in different ways at different times.
For example, if you beat your servant and they die in LESS than three days, apparently that's "murder".
However, if you beat your servant and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's NOT "murder".
However, if you beat a fellow citizen and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's "murder" again.
Different rules for different people in different situations. Not universal. Not unchanging.
Not to mention, the decalogue is NOT original. It cannot be the origin of morality because there are much older examples of similar codes.
Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
These moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The law was instituted for Israel yet we recognize its goodness too.
Do you agree with the Orthodox Jewish legal tradition/interpretations?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Best method would just be encouraging of ethical and moral 'good amongst people low and high, I'd think. And regulations to restrain greed.
Here's how you "fix" capitalism.
If people are starving, they'll work in unsafe conditions at unfulfilling jobs.
This is called "wage slavery".
This is also why "capitalists" hate "welfare" so much. Poor and desperate people will work for scraps and don't expect "benefits".
(IFF) people were guaranteed a modest and safe life (food, clothing, shelter) (THEN) people would refuse to work for abusive employers in unsafe conditions at unfulfilling jobs UNLESS THEY WERE WELL COMPENSATED.
NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION NEEDED.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Stop depending on it. It's not their job. Show me where it is mandated to them.
Do you believe in a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Though I still read about all these conspiracies with a bit of salt. I'm often wary of becoming some conspiracy nut.
THORIUM REACTORS,
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
love is being the owner of the company that makes rape whistlesAnd even though you started the company with good intentions trying to reduce the rate of rape, now you don't want to reduce it at all cause if the rape rate declines then you'll see an equal decline in whistle salesWithout rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?
I call this, "the policeman's dilemma".
The police vow to "fight crime" and if they succeed, crime falls and police budgets are gutted.
They are motivated to not put themselves out of a job.
All organizations (organisms) are naturally self-protecting.
If the national anti-cancer research laboratory could choose between "treating cancer symptoms" and "curing cancer", they'd naturally be inclined to the former and against the latter (based on an unfettered profit motive).
It might even work in their favor to promote (or downplay the dangers of) activities and or products that are likely risk-factors for cancer.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, we should trust the private sector which revolves around profit and competition... To provide better than the government that needs to satisfy its citizens in order to remain in power...
I always find it hilarious when people say, "the government should run like a business".
Because that always works,
The business geniuses who built a multi-billion dollar entertainment complex in 2019,
Wirecard, the most innovative tech company on the planet,
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Corporate America is already more charitable than you imagine, but figures if there's a givernment [I am misspelling on purpose] doing it, their contribution is not necessary to extend. It's actually the way it used to be done.
And that worked out swimmingly,
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime.
People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
...protected by their right to personal bodily autonomy...
Also, PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
In the same way a SOVEREIGN country can deport unwelcomed (non citizen) residents, a SOVEREIGN person can deport unwelcomed residents.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'd draw the line at cell specialization, around 6 weeks into pregnency.
If someone is in your country illegally (and will very likely die if they are deported) will you deport them?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I would draw the line in about when the fetus can feel pain.
For moral consistency, I'm guessing you're a vegetarian?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But I would focus on contraception in order to hopefully kick abortions off of the face of the planet.
Are you familiar with the concept "crisis pregnancy center"?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No they should not [provide contraception]
Why not?
ALSO.
Should the pro-lifers spend their time and money providing 9 months of free room and board and free medical care and adoption services for women who don't wish to be mothers?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think they should support free contraception. It reduces abortions by a huge amount.
100% THIS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.
Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence.
Then why do you keep talking about "the ten commandments"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue I am better informed than you on the subject but I'm not sure I am an expert.
If you're claiming that you know the true will of "YHWH" based purely on the "words on the page" and furthermore that thousands of years of careful consideration by the people who actually wrote the thing down in the first place "is wrong", then you MUST BE AN EXPERT.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Both you and I believe in morality.
Ethics, code of conduct, social contract, or the like.
The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.
The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.
Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.
How do you know "the decalogue" is valid? Because it matches your moral intuition.
Try this on for size,
The ten yamas are:
1) ahiṁsā, “noninjury,” not harming others by thought, word or deed;
2) satya, “truthfulness,” refraining from lying and betraying promises;
3) asteya, “nonstealing,” neither stealing nor coveting nor entering into debt;
4) brahmacharya, “divine conduct,” controlling lust by remaining celibate when single, leading to faithfulness in marriage;
5) kshamā, “patience,” restraining intolerance with people and impatience with circumstances;
6) dhṛiti, “steadfastness,” overcoming nonperseverance, fear, indecision, inconstancy and changeableness;
7) dayā, “compassion,” conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings;
8) ārjava, “honesty, straightforwardness,” renouncing deception and wrongdoing;
9) mitāhāra, “moderate appetite,” neither eating too much nor consuming meat, fish, fowl or eggs;
10) śaucha, “purity,” avoiding impurity in body, mind and speech.
The ten niyamas are:
1) hrī, “remorse,” being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;
2) santosha, “contentment,” seeking joy and serenity in life;
3) dāna, “giving,” tithing and giving generously without thought of reward;
4) āstikya, “faith,” believing firmly in God, Gods, guru and the path to enlightenment;
5) Īśvarapūjana, “worship of the Lord,” the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation;
6) siddhānta śravaṇa, “scriptural listening,” studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one’s lineage;
7) mati, “cognition,” developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru’s guidance;
8) vrata, “sacred vows,” fulfilling religious vows, rules and observances faithfully;
9) japa, “recitation,” chanting mantras daily;
10) tapas, “austerity,” performing sādhana, penance, tapas and sacrifice. [**]
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
3) what good may be recognized [CHERRY PICKED] in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Acceptance of deistic hypotheses, is no guarantee of an individuals state of mind.
Neither "better" nor "worse".
Created:
-->
@Stephen
...that we may choose to love Him.
When the inventor was asked "why'd you make all these sentient robots?" they confidently replied, "that they may choose to love me".
"The inventor's lost his marbles", the townspeople quietly whispered to each other.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.
33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).You just said that you can't decipher my intentions. Which is it?
Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.
Your pre-judice: Only "YHWH" can provide a logically coherent origin of moral intuition.
How do you validate the moral codec of "YHWH"?
You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using YOUR moral intuition.
And then you credit "YHWH" for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".
King Hammurabi didn't know the law of "YHWH", and yet codified a set of rules more comprehensive than "the ten commandments".
Many cultures that predate Abraham have inscribed practical codes of conduct.
Your explanation seems to be "YHWH" wrote a moral code on their hearts.
THEREFORE, "the ten commandments" is superfluous and redundant and NOT prerequisite to moral intuition.
Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.
You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.
This claim is unfalsifiable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have already explained my reasoning with this verse. Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence.
So, OT is "off limits"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you believe you can correctly interpret what I have said?
I can decipher the words and their logical conclusions, but NOT your intention.
Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).
And when you don't quite understand my meaning you ask me to explain it further.
Either directly or indirectly by paraphrasing.
Thus, you must understand that there is an objective meaning in communications,
Nope. Please explain.
I also don't (CAN'T) give the author(s) of the Tao Te Ching and or the Bardo Thodol that "courtesy".
That is inconsistent and hypocritical if you do that.
Look, you're the "expert" on this subject, so that's why I'm asking you.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?How do you mean? I believe I have.I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of morality for it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of loves others.
How do the "Ten Commandments" relate to COPYRIGHT LAW?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place.
Literally, "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out".
Of course, "they deserved it" because those pesky prisoners probably "caused the israelites to sin" (or they probably would in the future, better not take any chances).
It sounds like "everyone is equal before jesus" is more like "shape-up or ship-out".
HOW DOES THIS BIBLE STORY INFORM YOUR PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS??
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Wrong. There is no free man nor slave, no female of male but all are one in Jesus Christ. The biblical teaching promotes loving others and looking out for their best interests.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [**]
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [**]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, it should not bother you if you are being consistent with atheism in which the universe is a meaningless mass of matter.
Atheism makes no such claim.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am probably not consistent with atheism.
Do you self-identify as a Theist?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Should my body be under the control of the state in cases where I could save a life even at risk to my own?
Great question.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
...denying the legitimacy of sacrificing the rights of one human being in order to benefit others.
I agree 100% with this part.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The word "end" in this phrase has the same meaning as in the phrase "means to an end". The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.
So a human should be treated as a GOAL.
Please provide a practical example of how this might be accomplished.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
...because we simply don't understand the Ancient Near East culture,
It seems like "objective morality" is functionally indistinguishable from "subjective morality".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That correct interpretation comes from finding the Author's meaning, not interjecting my own meaning into the text.Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?They do not try to understand what God is saying. Their bias, influence from others, and denominationalism gets in the way. His Word is our standard.It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.Even though I use my human filter - my mind - I try to get the Author's meaning. That is possible, so there is a correct INTERPRETATION.
I'm not sure how your interpretation of "the Author's meaning" is "unfiltered" by your human perception.
Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?
Created: