Total posts: 3,179
-->
@3RU7AL
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal.Please reveal "YHWH"s PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS.
I did in a previous post but I will do so again. To put it simply and concise - love God and love your neighbour.
Now what does that look like - the Ten Commandments.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.
No, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed. All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly. While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter for you but someone else might not give a damn. We would just be living under the illusion that it mattered in an amoral universe. And since there is no final accountability again, what does it matter if I can do something without consequences?
Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter? If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly? That is the problem with atheism. It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time.Morality is like language.Each geographical area implicitly agrees on a "standard" and that "standard" evolves over time.
Evolves to what? How can something that has no fixed best be better? Better than what? If you don't have an ideal then how can you determine and compare qualitative value?
When two geographical areas have conflicting or opposite views then which is the true view? Are you telling me that both are correct? That is illogical as shown by the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of middle exclusion which are contravened. And what happens to the person who lives slap dab on the border of two geographical areas. Whose law should he obey? Is he free to do the one on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday? If one cultural group or geographic location allows killing an innocent human being (abortion) and the other does not can a person on the borde flip-flop. Are they allowed to determine whatever they want to do?
There is no "universal" "one-true" language.
So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values? As I have said before, you can think such thoughtss but you can't live practically with those beliefs for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong, and if you don't I would say you have major problems. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'
So, once again, the question becomes what (or rather who - for morality is a mind based thing) is that universal true standard of morality?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval?My personal preference would be for everyone to stop killing each other.
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, a description) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?
However, more to the point of the question, THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T ENJOY AN AUTHORIZED LEGAL SHOOTING.
So then you would agree that it is okay to torture innocent children for fun?
And naturally, you'd expect the people who are repulsed by killing to do much less of it, leaving the doors wide for those eager to send their fellows through the gates of hell.
Again, it is God who is wronged. He is just and will not let those who practice evil and will not repent a close relationship with Him and those who do. God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes and He will not punish innocent creatures. Since we are designed for fellowship with Him forever and if we do not choose as much then the option is separation for eternity, which will be hell since you think the moral relativism now is bad. When there are no restraints it will be worse.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.You're drawing a distinction without a difference.You say that you have moral preferences.
I am arguing against preferences as being morally justifiable based on what preferences are and I am arguing that an atheist has no recourse but to resort to them because that system of thought, devoid of God, has no fixed standard. Your preference could very well be different from another, so the question then is which is the true preference, as if there can be without a final reference point.
And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".
I'm saying that my basis for morality has what as necessary and an atheistic one does not, nor can an atheist show it is, as I have asked SkepticalOne to do since he claims his is morally objective. To date he has not been able to show me it is, or even that it is reasonable to believe.
And remember the topic, please.
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? (in explaining morality)
You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God. Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.
That would be like someone declaring that french or chinese is "the world's best and most objective language" and then forcing everyone to use it exclusively.
Preferences do that. They mix two different subjects, morality and preference, , a taste, a feeling, a description - 'I like, or I think' - with a prescription - 'You ought to.' To put it differently, it is mixing something that is with something that ought to be.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying that a supernatural Being can't choose to speak through a donkey?Not at all. I'm saying that "YHWH" CAN DO ANYTHING!!! INCLUDING STOP ALL CRIME AND END ALL SUFFERING!!!
He can do all things physical that are logically possible but He can't create a square circle. That is a logical absurdity. As for morally, God cannot tell a lie and He will not punish the innocent with separation for Him but reward them with eternal life. This life is just a prelude to a greater reality.
So, yes, He could stop all crime and does in His time. He has a purpose for allowing crime. It showcases what humanity will resort to when they ignore God. And at some point many, if not most of us, who think about this issue of evil will seek out a solution to it and the greater good which is found in God.
If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?Yes.Why does "YHWH" stand by and do nothing while countless people die every single day?
He does not. God allows us to reach a point where our moral evil reaches a limit then comes judgment. Once we take ourselves outside of God's hand of protection all evil breaks loose because the restraint and protection against the hands that evil humans do is removed and bad things happen. And sometimes God allows us to experience the bad as a life lesson and to rely on Him more fully. Such is the case with natural disasters. So, there is a purpose that we do not always see and then mostly in retrospect. Good comes from evil, as exhibited in natural disasters and inhumane acts. People do rally and show love.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error.Same for humans, same for wolves.
As humans we rely on so much more than instinct. We rely on logic and reason and conceptions that the wolf is not able to express as we can, if it even thinks such things. There is no evidence it does contemplate origins, nor that it discusses morality and philosophize about what is more evil, it killing a rabbit or us killing it. It just runs by instinct because we have shown we get the better of it more often than not because we can outthink it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What about your god? What kind of puppet-master is he/she/it? (favour returned)THE (great and mighty all holy and most honorable) NOUMENON is quite inscrutable (one might even say "incomprehensible").
While the vastness of God's knowledge is incomprehensible, what He has revealed about Himself is knowable, and the universe is a reflection of His might/power and wisdom.
What this bils down to is a comparison and contrasting of our deities in their reasonableness. I am willing to go there. I have not caught up to your current posts. Maybe you have already prepared the thread I suggested so we could stay on topic. What I am doing right now is just going down the queue in order and answering each post.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?No idea of what you mean or the significance of the question.If your "YHWH" holds the secret keys to universal justice, what does it say about how long exclusive copyright protections should last?
Since God is eternal, so are His laws and edicts, provided it is not an if/then covenantal agreement He enters into with His human creatures. Sin is wronging God, your Creator and therefore you are accountable for the way you live. Jesus Christ has become of sin offering, an eternal offering, not like the kind offered up by Israel.
If our laws are supposedly based on the principles of "YHWH", then we need to identify the core principles (PRIMARY AXIOMS) and use them to eradicate all legal contradictions and miscarriages of justice.
The primary axioms are the Ten Commandments.
It is ideal we obey God. In that way we obtain His blessings. But we all recognize how unattainable God's perfect standard is. That is why we need a Saviour. We recognize our own inability. Jesus said that to look at a woman lustfully was to commit adultery in our hearts. He equated hating our brother as murder for the same vial feelings and spite are present.
The laws of our country should be based on these Godly principles which Jesus said boil down to two, love God and love your neighbour. The only one of the Ten Commandments not carried forward from the OT was the Sabbath law. That is because the Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath. But the principle of a day of rest is still present. The Sabbath Law of the OT taught or pointed to a spiritual truth revealed in the NT. OT Israel never entered the rest of God, the peace of God, due to their disobedience. And in our everyday life the principle of rest is important, and to take a day of to replenish our minds and bodies is health.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How is the atheist position objective, universal, absolute, unchangeable?(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
The funny thing is that think kind of thinking promotes violence since it forgets to look out for your neighbours and their rights. It is also a very primitive system. If you don't get your way with such a system it would be permissible to use whatever means necessary to achieve your goals.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do atheists justify something as good or bad from where they would necessarily start?Exactly the same way you do.Moral impulse.Sense of fairness.
I point to a necessary fixed standard. What is the standard you reference and what makes it necessary in determining right and wrong?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, what does a rabbit have to do with the derivation of morality?(IFF) morality is truly "objective" and "universal" (THEN) it must apply equally to all things (not just humans)
If there is no objective and universal reference point then you do not have right and wrong. You just have 'I like this,' or 'I like that.'
Morality is a framework that humans use to discern right and wrong but if there is no final measure it is arbitrary, relative, subjective and contingent. How does a shifting system of belief make something right or good? It just forces its views on others.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What does stamp collecting have to do with origins or the existence of life?It's an example of a similar logical structure intended to highlight the absurdity of defining a person by what they don't do or by what they don't believe in.
It is a poor analogy, very loosely based.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A DEIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
How? An atheist excludes a deity by either explicitly stating God or gods do not exist, or state an ignorance of God or gods and act as if they do not exist, or deny God by saying their is no evidence while still unconsciously believing or presupposing His existence. Their life, their values, their thinking all reflects their ignorance of God or gods.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE AN ANIMIST. TECHNICALLY STILL "NOT A THEIST".
Technically, how does that work? What evidence is there of animism? What rock, plant, mountain or animal is capable of creating the universe and is reasonable to believe in? How many human characteristics are given to such a belief.
Not a reasonable belief.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A SPIRITUALIST.
What spiritual beings are you speaking of and how reasonable are they to believe in? Are they Almighty and eternal, self-existing beings and how have they revealed themselves that is reasonable to believe? If they are not Almighty then they too are not necessary beings. There is an explanation beyond them. Something or someone is greater than them.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A UNIVERSALIST, SYNCRETIST, AND OR MONIST.
He still denies or ignores God or gods.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A GNOSTIC.
Knowing what? That God does not exist? Knowing that he does not know God? That would be an agnostic, someone who is ignorant of God and lives their life based on the denial of God.
AN ATHEIST MIGHT ALSO BE A TAOIST.
May the universe or universal force be with you! Another word for an atheist.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not believe you understand the significance of worldviews in how they influence your thinking and your post demonstrates this.ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW.
Sure it is for a reasoning and understanding person, not for someone who knows very little and doesn't care to know anything.
ATHEISM IS MERELY A LABEL FOR "NOT A THEIST".
Atheist is more than the term/label for it describes a way of thinking.
If you are not a theist you understand things through a naturalistic process because you don't look to a necessary being as creating. Even if you place the inevitable back by interjecting aliens did it, if they are not necessary beings (i.e., eternal personal beings capable of creating the universe that self-exist - a description of God) you are still left with naturalism because you exclude a necessary being or something (someone) that is not caused. Thus, you still need an explanation unless you are proposing something from nothing, which has its own flaws.
ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
Sure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.
NOT EVEN SCIENCE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".
They can't make sense of it although they offer ideas/theories such as abiogenesis.
SCIENCE MERELY PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE.
The Big Bang builds on many presuppositions, so does macroevolution. Evolution is the "science" (more like scientism) of life forms. It is a way of explaining our existence by tracing ourselves back to a simple common ancestor.
THE "BIG BANG" IS MERELY A DURABLE HYPOTHESIS (WHICH DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY CONTRADICT THEISM).
It still attempts to answer how origins of existence happened. And I agree, it does not.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society.
Again, that begs the question of what is morally right? I gave you the example of abortion. Was it right then or now??? Second, if laws are made by subjective individuals, what makes those people right in their assessment?
Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter. In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly.
Human preferences that do not recognize, discern or follow God's commands and decrees do shift. Christians who ignore or do not rightly discern His decrees and commands are shifting and do not represent the truth. We appeal to the biblical God and seek the right interpretation and understanding as WRITTEN. Where the Bible is silent we make judgments on the principles given and build on those. If a Christian disagrees with me we have a standard, a reference point that we appeal to and make our case from, understanding there is a correct way of understanding God. That is by getting His meaning, not making our own.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have committed to deity but which one(s)?NOUMENON.
How do you know you commit to God as He is? It is easy to assert such things, but show me some evidence. You see, the Christian God is strongly evidenced. There is 66 writings that in themselves give verification to the reasonableness of His Being. These writings have many verifications from the world of history and archeology as well that I assert makes your system weak and not as reasonable or sufficient in comparison. The unity is not of one book but of many that are internally consistent although often misunderstood.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example.You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
I am giving examples that work in the quantifying world as well as the qualitative world in the respect that both worlds of values need a measure. I make a distinction between what is qualitative and what is quantitative but I realize that both need a fixed standard of comparison. And, as I said before, oneness is not measurable in the quantitative world for you cannot grab onto the concept of oneness, you can't taste, smell, see, or hear it. Yet the concept of oneness is necessary in grasping quantities. You have to know what one means to apply it to quantities. Physically, oneness does not exist although we can demonstrate the concept in the empirical world. So, the world system of expressing quantities in mathematics has its bearing in the conceptual (minds, intellect), but it also has a visual measuring system. Moral values of right and wrong do not. My point is that there is a measuring system for each - qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative values such as length, weight, height, size can be measured and we have a fixed system of measurement. I argue we do also with qualitative values, by necessity. As with quantitative values there has to be a best or fixed measure as a comparison.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I find on almost every page of Scripture in the OT a typological revelation of Jesus ChristWhat's your impression of Numbers 31:15-18 [LINK]
As it applies to a revelation of Jesus Christ or on its moral aspect?
Numbers 31:15-18
New American Standard Bible
15 And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? 16 Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
15 And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? 16 Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
***
My impression is that God did not want married women or women who had committed to a man and shared his philosophy of life influencing the men of Israel by ideas that were counter to God's laws and purposes as in what happened with women who taught on the counsel of Balaam, a human and child sacrificial god. Now as for girls or innocent female children, they had not been indoctrinated into the worship of false gods.
Moses wanted those guilty of these wild and immoral practices to be judged while those who were innocent spared. It was an act of mercy, for if God punished the guilty through judgment while leaving the helpless to starve to death and perish, that would not be just or merciful. You may object by saying what is just about seeing your parents killed, but I respond by saying what is just about not punishing the guilty and the guilty do impact the innocent.
As for some of that reference to Christ, we have the typology of selecting a pure and an innocent wife as opposed to an immoral one, just as Christ selects and loves the Church, His bride, and makes her pure through His sanctifying blood. The Bride of Christ can come before God in purity. The Church are those called out individuals (by the gospel) believers who have placed their trust in Him, not some denomination.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Two other questions, what deity do you believe in or are you unsure and what do you know about your said deity?As a GNOSTIC DEIST, my direct-experiential-communion is a somewhat private affair.
Thus, no evidence to date but your experience as proof. Why should that be believed from the myriad of gods people have believed in throughout humanity?
Do you want to set up another thread on which is more plausible, the biblical God or your God?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A trickster. How can I trust such a deity?Are you perhaps familiar with the story of JOB? [LINK]
Yes, I am familiar. How do you propose God tricked Job? By teaching him a moral lesson? What do you want me to glean from the video? Please provide the timepoint in the video you want me to refer to.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are right, I am not neutral. I do reject "YHWH" on the basis that I believe NANABOZHO is the ONE true God.
Show me on what basis you do that. I will argue that the evidence is weak compared to the biblical God. So back up your claim by providing the evidence. Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
So far, very few have addressed this question in providing their system as the more reasonable. Are you going to do that?
Morality is the subject, and which worldview better explains and is more reasonable to believe regarding morality is the question. You see, I have claimed or stated that Christianity is reasonable to believe whereas atheism is not. That is the subject under discussion, but I continue to answer these questions that do not seem related.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Such a god seems not be the Creator or Originator, perhaps just one of a myriad of created beings.Perhaps an aspect of a superhyper-natural-god-made-flesh?
I am not sure what you mean. A natural god? What god is this?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systemsIt appears you're attempting to blur the line between law and morality. The Torah is a volume of law, not morality.
Laws deal with what is morally right and wrong. The Law of the Torah deals with what is right and wrong. It is a set of governing principles for people to abide by. There was a reason God prescribed what He did.
As you said, it is the "day-to-day," one day of which was to be treated differently than the others; a day to consider the law of God.
I'm not familiar with that "day to day" statement. Let me expand on what I mean. Where there is a change of covenants there is a change of the law. The NT is a covenant of grace, the OT was a covenant of works. Jesus meets the requirements of the law on behalf of the believer, satisfying the righteousness of God. He meet every jot and title of the OT law. That, in part is why the NT is a better covenant.
God does not neglect the Law. He fulfills it on behalf of His Son. The Person we have wronged with sin is God. He is in a position to forgive, yet He is also a just Judge. That is why the Son becomes a human being, to meet all the righteous requirements of God and restore humanity's relationship to God. A criminal is separated from society because of his/her wrongdoing. In the same way we have been alienated from God because of our wrongdoing and Jesus sets the record straight. Since God is the One offended, He requires justice, either fulfilled in the Son or in ourselves.
The law is specific. Morality varies. Morality is much closer to theistic religion than to law.
The judgments of the law varies depending on the situation but the law is based on particular principles of morality (what is right and wrong). Yes, sometimes laws are unjust.
Murder is wrong, but what defines or constitutes murder? Is self-defence murder? Is a JUST war wrong? No, there is no malicious intent in protecting yourself. Moral aspects of the law vary.
One cannot blend moral and legal.
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?
Actually, one can; it is limited to a judge, who first settles law, and if it has been broken, and then settles punishment for lawbreaking, where the morality of mercy plays a hand.
The law is a set of rules to judge between right and wrong. Mercy is at the discretion of the judge or court, but if someone has broken the law the penalty has not been met until the payment is made. That is why God is mercify as well as just. He meets the penalty in the Son on behalf of those who believe, and gives us His mercy because of the Son's act of grace. Jesus meets the justice of God in paying the penalty. If you are guilty before the law of owing someone more money than you can afford to pay and someone else steps in and pays the penalty then the debt is met. That is the grace and mercy of God. He is the offended party. He is the one wronged. He is the one who accepts the payment of Another on our behalf in meeting His just standards. The penalty is paid for those who rely on it. Others do not accept it and want to pay it themselves. That is their choice.
But mercy does not negate the law; it has been broken, which the judge acknowledges. But the judge is in a position to determine case-by-case disposition, and may find that a severe punishment does not fit the crime and its motivation, and may, therefore, apply mercy. Mere lawyers do not have that flexibility.
Sometimes the judge acts as God in such cases. The difference is that the requirements of the law have not been met if the penalty or time served varies between people. It is not equal justice for the crime. Sometimes built into the law of a country there is a principle or provision such as The First Offenders Act to go easy on a first offence if it is a minor offence. That is where grace or mercy comes in. The situation varies depending of what law is broken. But for someone who commits murder they deserve to go to prison. The time they serve may depend on the circumstances involved, such as first-degree murder, second-degree, and so forth.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example.You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.
Grab hold of oneness, will you? The concept of one plus one can be demonstrated in the material world (empirically).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are an atheist you explain these things without God or gods usually by naturalism and humanism.or not at all.ATHEIST =/= HUMANIST
Atheists usually incorporate humanism in their belief system.
What other rational, reasoning, revealed being(s) do they rely on for their worldview? Aliens? Where are these aliens revealed as communicating with us?
NOUN
- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
If you deny God or gods what is left but a human evaluation of life, being, origins, etc?
ATHEIST =/= NATURALIST
Again, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.
If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left? It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose. If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them. Or you could pos the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.
ATHEIST =/= CREED
Atheists deny God in one of a few ways. They either see no evidence for God, or they reject the evidence that is offered, or they don't care enough to seek God because they have not examined their beliefs well enough.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, the problem is that you are not ignorant about NANABOZHO. You know a great deal about NANABOZHO, , just rejecting.
Not much at all.
Since you mentioned this god I am relying on you to make your appeal for him/her/it as the almighty. Show me why you think this god is worthy of worship and consideration. If this god is not the Almighty then he/she/it is not the supreme being and someone who deserves worship for what has been made.
Not only this, does your god or the one you put forth have the qualities and attributes that the Christian God does. Show me how this god has revealed such attributes.
Finally, why would I seek out other gods when the Christian God is sufficient, consistent, logical, and makes sense of the world, universe, humanity, life, morality, truth, wisdom and a host of other things? My God is most reasonable to believe in. Can you show me Nanabozho is too? Logically, at least one of the two is not the true God. So bring forth your argument so we can discuss it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not subscribing is a denial of God or gods, yet I bet you know about the Christian God.Not subscribing is NOT a "denial" of magazines, yet I bet you know about magazines you do not actually subscribe to.
Exactly my point. The atheist (general speaking) knows about the biblical God but chooses not to subscribe to Him. In his/her outlook they chose another avenue in explaining the world, the universe, life. It is through natural means. For those reasoning people who do not know of the biblical God, they still have beliefs about God/gods in forming their opinions. You can't deny something without first being aware of it. What would you be denying?
The funny thing about an atheist is that they make themselves or some other relative, subjective human being the object of worship. They become their own authority on all things or leave that in the hands of their idols, their subjective human gods. They pick and choose who they want to believe in every branches of science, or they take other means such as perhaps an atheistic philosopher instead of a scientist as the guru god.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't be devoid of belief if you are a reasoning being who claims to be an atheist.You are an ATHEIST regarding NANABOZHO.
With good reason.
How do you justify your DISBELIEF (devoid of belief) in NANABOZHO?
Because my belief in the biblical God is well justified and from such a belief I can make sense of the world that is not logically inconsistent with that belief or what I see and verify in its livability. I don't have to search a thousand worldviews to find the truth if Christianity is consistent and truthful in as much as I can verify it. On the basis of logic alone I know that two opposing beliefs cannot both be true at the same time.And, as a system of belief it makes sense of the world, life, morality.
Tell me what Nanabozo reveals about evil. How does Nanabozo say it comes about? What historical verification does Nanabozo offer that coincide with its truth claims? How consistent are the teaching?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Next, you are guilty of avoiding the question, "Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"yES.The answer is yES.
Show me how. Start with how morals come about for an atheist and what makes them anything but a relativistic and subjective preference. If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality? What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another? Atheists use qualitative language all the time but how do they distinguish better? What is their ultimate/final/fixed reference point?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you show me other religious belief systems that offer the same kind of quality proofs as biblical prophecy?If you value accurate PROPHECY, perhaps you should worship BLACKROCK. [LINK]
What point do you want me to glean? Blackrock was a financial data keeper, programmed by a man. I watched from your set start point one conspiracy theory and assertion after another until the Trump part (1:32:00).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me that such a god is reasonable to believe in and I will do my best to show the inconsistency in such a belief.It is reasonable to believe in ISHTAR (2150 BCE) because the holy EPIC OF GILGAMESH predates ABRAHAM (1927 BCE).
How is that showing me that such a god is reasonable to believe? You once again deflect the question. You tell me how it is reasonable and I will offer my refutation.
Before the Bible was codified people followed all kinds of beliefs as they strayed further and further from the biblical God until it became necessary for God to judge the wickedness on the earth. What the Bible is is a setting straight of the record in who God is and our relationship with Him and how it has been altered by sin and the solution to rectifying that problem in show what works and what does not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.Such belief is logically inconsistent.Please present a specific logical error.
As a pluralistic religion, Hinduism teaches all religions hold and teach truths about Brahman, which is inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity and every other major religious belief which make exclusive statements about God/its god, and God's nature, which contradicts that tenant. Andrew Montano ministries look at worldview analysis from nine basic tests or aspects and the Hindu worldview from five, here.
***
"The third logical problem has to do with the claim that the basic problem is our ignorance of our true Brahman nature. The fact is that we cannot really be unenlightened regarding Brahman, if the soul is one with Brahman. We cannot be ignorant of Brahman, if we are one with it. If we are ignorant of Brahman's nature, then Brahman is also ignorant of Brahman, since the two are one, which is impossible."
***
Kenneth Samples offers a contrast in beliefs also:
(Five ways in which Krishna and Jesus differ)
***
Hinduism looks upon the world in an illusionary manner, suffering as illusion and meaningless, yet Hindus still look both ways when crossing the street and act as though there is meaning in seeking oneness as well as in everyday life. What is there to guarantee Brahman is not an illusion too? What verification do Hindus have in knowing their system of belief is true - feelings? What concrete examples does this system of beliefs offer in verifying itself?
Hinduism is a works religion like every other except Christianity.
Not only this, an adherent never knows if their good deeds, good life (karma), is sufficient in attaining Nirvana or oneness with Brahman. Is what is done going to be a step forward or a step backward in reincarnation? The law of karma is selfish for it focuses on self. The system reveals no ultimate objective moral standard as a guideline and its adherents do not treat people equally but divide them into a caste system.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe I have good reason to believe that "YHWH" is not anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary.
Go ahead and present those reasons.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then there is the internal consistency and unity of these 66 'books' or writings.You might find this interesting. [LINK]
There are logical answers for these apparent contradictions which quite often are selective in what is included and ignore in the surrounding context. There is no reason given behind each passage at all. Notice that in each case one verse (without the surrounding context) is selected. A verse out of context is a pretext and there are various sites that logically answer and are logically consistent in dispelling what you consider are apparent biblical contradictions.
This is not a serious attempt to address the issues but an ad hom attack to mock Christians and Jews as stupid people, which I object to.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And just another reminder, you have not attempted to engage in the topic at hand.It's strange that you would choose to comment on my internal motives.
I noticed you veered off-topic and I am still engaging with your posts.
I selected two systems of thought, two worldviews. I laid out to you why they can be classified as such. This is about which system is more reasonable to believe has sound moral values. Its objective is to look at the starting point for each system and follow the reasonableness of the system from there. The starting point is either a personal Being - God, or naturalism (impersonal matter) and follows it up from that starting point. Once you deny a personal being what is left but chance happenstance? The topic is designed to question what is necessary for morality, or what makes sense of morality, and showcase what these two systems offer.
I'm not sure how you could possibly know what I've "attempted" one way or another.
Your words convey your thoughts and how they relate or don't to the topic.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why does one need a belief?
To form ideas you have to believe things. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum. We have to start somewhere, with something, but where you start (your foundation, or what your worldview rests upon) is important. As a toddler you are taught - 'dog' - and shown a picture of a dog. You build upon those first word associations in forming a vocabulary. If you are taught that the image 'dog' is a cat you build on a faulty system of thought and it is not long before you find out your error. Your ideas become more complex and abstract as you grow and understand concepts. If you build a faulty foundation you incorporate many false ideas that do not stand up under scrutiny. That is why it is important to find out if what you believe is logical and reasonable to believe. You could build a major system of thought on faulty ideas, faulty beliefs.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Does this thread assume morality shows a single face? I propose morality is a room of multiple walls filled with masks, particularly in these days of P.C. re-imagination. So, what of reason in either atheism or theism? "Reasonable" has as many masks as morality. So, in fact, do "atheism" and "theism." When you think you're juggling only four balls, suddenly, you have legion.
Morality is complicated and there are lots of examples or scenarios of how Israel was to handle the day to day life of Israel under that covenant law. Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systems and the principles of the Ten Commandments apply in these legal systems. There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems. The idea of two or three credible eyewitnesse testimony is a principle still used in courts for proving guilt and innocence. It is where a country deviates from such a rule of law that injustice happens, like in the case of abortion in the USA. The framers of the Consstitution recognized some basic godly principles such as equality under the law for there to be justice.
And the principles for rest (wellbeing), containment for disease, and cleanliness (medical) are sound principles that are adopted and applied too.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins...You're putting the cart before the horse.We can only begin our epistemological exploration right here, within ourselves.
Although we have our reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings? Not if we derive our existence from something or someone else. If that is the case we are contingent beings. Thus, we have to start somewhere else beyond ourselves, unless you want to contend that you are all there is and everything is your mind in operation? Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.
We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.
You are not the origin of yourself if you had a beginning. So you have to start somewhere else, besides yourself, even though you are using your mind to reason this out, unless you are all there is. So which is it? Did you begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something or someone else?
We expand our maps of data toward an unknown horizon.These layers of detail all radiate outward with our individual selves at the center.It is illogical to presuppose some hypothetical (unobserved) "starting point" (that is not "you").NanabozhoYou can't map what you can't detect.
Some things are self evident. Logic is one of those things. You can't deny it without using it. You can't "map" logic by an empirical standard for it is conceptual. So, even though you can't detect it with your senses, it is necessary to form and make sense of matter and mindful ideas that express the world/universe outside ourselves.
I argue God is another self-evident truth although some want to deny the obvious. That is why we have to go through the discussion of what is reasonable and what would be necessary. The alternative to a Creator is blind random chance happenstance. Of course you could argue for other gods or some 'sufficient' being that created us, but if that being is not almighty (which describes God) or necessary, and has a beginning, such as Nanabozho, then there is a greater cause and explanation. So, if you want to discuss another god or gods then we can have that discussion.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How exactly does the existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem) of opinion based morals?
There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.
And even if it did how do we determine some god(s) morals?
That God/god would have to have revealed His standards (i.e., the Ten Commandments which teach on both our relationship to Him and our relationship to others. Jesus summed up those commands in two. By reading God's revelation Christians come to understand His moral beauty and goodness. God has a reason for what He does and His revelation carries with it meaning and purpose. To follow Him is to be wise. His Spirit communes with our spirits in subtle ways that are experienced by His word, through prayer, and in His providence.
And if the morals of the god(s) in question are abhorrent isn't it better to be immoral than to support a moral standard (even an "objective" one) that we are in fundamental disagreement with?
Are you speaking of the biblical God or some other god?
How is it good to kill an innocent human being? How is it good to steal or lie or covet or commit adultery, or dishonour your Creator?
If you are speaking of the Christian God, is it your understanding, or is it actually abhorrent? It is not abhorrent to me. I understand to some degree why God does what He does in His treatment of nations in the OT. There are reasons He prescribed what He did, some of which I got into with SkepticalOne.
If you disagree with goodness is it not you who are evil?
First, I would ask you what is your ultimate standard, the fixed reference point that you point to as your reference point? If it is yourself? I would question why what you believe is the actual good, especially when others disagree with you and your standard. Second, if your standard is some cultural norm or convention I would refer you to the same culture perhaps fifty years earlier and point to how they believed the opposite of what they do now and ask you what is the actual case? Then I would ask you how a shifting standard can identify 'good' and how it can gauge better? Better in relation to what? What is the best that it measures qualitative values against? Popular opinion passed into law?
Thought experiment time!If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?
Why do you think God would do such a thing?
Are you referring to the example of Abraham who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness? The purpose God led him up the mountain with his son was not only a test for him in his faith but also an example or typological lesson and foreshadowing of what His Son would accomplish (voluntarily) when God made Him the sacrificial Lamb.
The physical reality of the OT is seen in a spiritual light or understanding in the NT. What is the physical reality in the OT becomes a spiritual reality understood by believers in the NT.
What if your preferred god sent an angel to led you to a gay bar and delivered a prophesy and a commandment that you were to engage in homosexuality with the patrons? Would you be of the opinion that he was leading you to behave morally since he is the final objective arbiter of morality?
Everything needed for our salvation has already been accomplished by Jesus Christ and all fulfillment of prophecy has been accomplished. Thus, I can only go on what has been written. I should not depart for His revelation, but if I do I have an Advocate who has gone before me, establishing my righteousness in Him, and who I look to for my inspiration, guidance and salvation. In Him, along with the promised Holy Spirit who speaks through the word to my spirit, I gain wisdom.
Would you be of the opinion that he was merely testing you to see if you would refuse to do either (or both) of the things I just mentioned on the grounds that you are of the opinion that these are immoral actions? Wouldn't your forming an opinion about how to follow/interpret these commands put us right back to square one of having to rely on our own opinions of right and wrong even though there is an "objective" moral standard?
God's standard has been revealed. Anything that goes against that I should avoid if I am faithful to Him but I do fall short all the time. Thus I appeal to Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice as meeting the satisfaction of God of a good life lived perfectly and atoning for my sin and the punishment that should have been mine by His substitute for me, Him taking the punishment upon Himself to fulfill God's will. In this way God is fully satisfied by my faith in His Son because His Son accomplished everything I could not.
Thus, I can't boast on what I have done or my merit but on the merit of Christ I stand and gain a relationship with God!
I understand that you are of the opinion that your preferred god is unlikely to make such commands but the bible does (by some interpretations) command the death penalty for many transgressions and (presumably) you do not think that all homosexuals all divorced women and all wall mart greeters who are scheduled to work on sunday should be executed so you already interpret the Yahweh's commands based on your own subjective moral intuition.
God has made His provisions for me and those are found in the NT, a covenant that is by His grace, not based on what I have done or could do. I recognize what is evil or what should not be done to a large extent. And, I don't confuse the OT and its standards with the NT. They are two different covenants. God understands there are some things I must do to live, such as perhaps work on a Sunday if I am a shift worker. I live by and because of His grace and mercy to me. I recognize that there is one kind of marriage that God has sanctioned, between a man and a woman. I understand that divorce is not permitted except for marital unfaithfulness, and so on.
What is my takeaway supposed to be as an atheist given that you are still reliant on your opinion to guide you even with the objective moral standard you claim to have access to?
When in doubt I appeal to His word, His standard, not my own. If you can reason with me that I have not understood some teaching then present your case and we can discuss it. The point is that there is an ultimate reference point that I can appeal to, a necessary one, provided this God exists. The evidence is a different discussion. I can provide you with all kinds of reasons as to why my view is rationally justifiable. And lastly, I can appeal to you to show me why your moral values are "better" or THE standard over mine. Thus, please tell me what you believe about morality and let's examine which system of belief is more reasonable.
Since you say you are an atheist, where do your moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?
When I trace your starting point back as far as I can reasonably go, to origins, how does existence happen? What causes the 'beginning' if you believe there was one. Next, how does something nonliving become living? Then from what is, how do you get what ought to be?
What is my takeaway when various groups of Christians disagree fundamentally about what is and is not against the will of god including whether or not belonging to some of denominations of christianity is against the will of god?
Christianity is a relationship with God, not a denomination. When there are disagreements, they are not on the fundamentals or essentials. Deny those and you are not a Christian or are in serious error and need to revisit His Word. For other non-essential disputes, we also have the Word of God as our guide. That is our appeal. The Bible as our guide reveals there is the right way of interpretation. There is a right way of discerning what is meant. When in doubt we appeal to Scripture and to line upon line, precept upon precept. Anyone can isolate a verse and make it a pretext. We need to take into consideration the whole passage and related teachings, as well as the primary audience of address as well as time references and understand what things meant to that culture in which they lived. We must get what the Author meant and not read in our own private interpretation to understand the Author.
Likewise, to understand what I mean you must get my meaning not anything you want to make it be or else we have failed to communicate. Unlike God, I may be vague or need other words to communicate my meaning. With God's word, if there is a passage that causes difficulty we can reference others that give a clearer meaning to what is being said. Thus, we reference different passages that speak of the same thing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Cop-out - well worn cliches. I do not find your standards of evidence acceptable when it comes to origins. You keep telling me, "I don't know," yet you are dogmatic that your belief system is more reasonably evidenced than mine. You keep insinuating that my beliefs are not well-founded or well thought out or well evidenced. Assertion after assertion yet you don't want to go to the proofs that show in every area, my beliefs are more reasonable than yours.Let's not get entangled in all this goofy, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE stuff.Please present your ("objective") MORAL AXIOMS.
God (as revealed in the Bible), as the necessary Being, is required for morals. That is reasonable to believe. I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.
First, God is objective in the sense that He knows all things and is the creator of the universe and life on earth. Thus, He understands it and everything else about the universe to the umpteenth degree, to the smallest detail. He also understands us in every way. He made us to be volitional beings who have the ability to recognize right and wrong, just as He does. We came to understand the difference between right and wrong at the Fall. We disobeyed God we opened ourselves to moral relativism. We no longer listened to the objective, absolute, wise and sound God.
Second, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.
Third, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is. It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism. With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us. One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated about, and diminished to the point of death.
I could go on but I will let you digest.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@3RU7AL
And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine? Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing. What is good about that?LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE
How does that make it right? We are speaking of ethics/morality - right and wrong.
We are also speaking of a qualitative system - values. Qualitative values are abstract, conceptual. They must have a different standard of measure from quantitative values which are empirically measured. How does a mob make anything right or good? Are the mobs burning down Portland, Oregon morally good and right?
SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint? How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity?The scope and definition of ATHEISM is wholly divorced from the question of "objectivity".
I agree! We are on the same page, but I want him to explain how since he made the claim.
An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.What "IS" the case?
God's revelation of Himself and what is good. God is the necessary standard for the reason that such a being has what is necessary - omniscient, eternal, unchanging.
How do you leap from what "IS" to what "OUGHT" to be?
I base it on God's prescriptive decrees and commands - an authority and necessary being who knows everything and reveals what should be. Thou shalt not kill (murder). Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Love your neighbour as yourself, etc.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATHEISM.
They are not the same. The biblical God is a personal Being. We can know Him for He has revealed Himself in part, yet not comprehensively.
If the universe was not created by a personal Being there is intent, no agency, no purpose, no meaning, no value behind it so my belief is different from what an atheist would believe or use to explain existence or some aspect of it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATHEISM.
They are not the same. The biblical God is a personal Being. We can know Him for He has revealed Himself in part, yet not comprehensively.
If the universe was not created by a personal Being there is intent, no agency, no purpose, no meaning, no value behind it so my belief is different from what an atheist would believe or use to explain existence or some aspect of it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It takes faith to be an atheist, a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker.How much faith does it take you to NOT believe in NANABOZHO?How much faith does it take you to NOT believe in The Frocking Fettuccini Fox?
The truth sets me free. I am no longer chained to every possible avenue. The reason test, the logical consistency test, the experiential test, and the life test confirm the truth or reasonableness of the Christian belief. As I said from the start, what belief is more REASONABLE to believe. I do not believe you can show yours as more reasonable but if you want to then go ahead and start. We will compare and contrast the merits of both our beliefs.
Start. Explain what you mean and be more precise than just using Kant's noumenon.
Address your worldview belief in the four or five worldview areas I mentioned earlier.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance.How do you derive your moral aptitude from the "IS" (AXIOM) of a necessary moral being?
Through a stated revelation. God chose to reveal. Someone who is more than descriptive chose to reveal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy.There is NEVER a perfectly logical thread of reasoning that leads inevitably from any statement of "IS" (quantifiable, demonstrable, empirical observation, or AXIOM) (AND) any prescriptive statement of "OUGHT".
My examples was showing the difference between is and ought (as described in your video). Is or description does not prescribe. My liking something is what is. You must like it too prescribes what ought to be done. But what should you like it based on my preference? Liking ice-cream is perhaps not your goal. So why MUST you like it?
But beyond that distinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how did we first cross the divide to get an ought from an is, that is matter, the physical universe, in the case of naturalism or atheism, where a personal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain? Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic means according to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.
Even (IFF) the "IS" statement contains a god($).
The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good and we have the best to compare values against, provided He exists. Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you claim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God in reasonableness.
To an atheist, to arbitrarily make up something and call it good means that goodness is relative and changing. So, how do we ever know whether what you call "good" actually is the case, especially when I FEEL otherwise? Then who becomes the standard? The one who is mightier? Then Hitler's Germany, if successful in conquering the world would have been the norm we all lived under and if you were a Jew your life would have been snuffed out. Are you saying that to some Hitler's Germany is the actual good? You see, again you can think it might be but you can't live by such standards, for the moment Hitler decides your life doesn't meet his standard of worthwhile you are dead.
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINK
I listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?
Any artificial intelligent being would be a programmed being. It would only be as good as its maker designed it to be. Its input would determine what kind of moral actions it took.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too.Refined sugar is a leading risk-factor for heart-disease (and gluttony is a carnal sin) and killing others (without hesitation) is often considered necessary.
I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one.Unless you were recruiting and training soldiers.
So, do you believe that it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians for fun by your approval?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like?Without a "fixed reference point" how can a relative, subjective being determine their own preferences??
Nice non-answer!
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing? They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right? That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.
IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULE
In Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong. All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong. So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society. It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.
Is it more reasonable? I say no.How fabulously democratic of you.
Well bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted. This makes me think that you are just here to disrupt instead of have a meaningful discussion and exchange justifications.
It does not have what is necessary for morality.Please make your preferred definition of "morality" EXPLICIT.
I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference. Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so. Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.
Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?Well, do you like being chained to a grind-stone?
No, I don't. So what?
Do you happen to feel some personal preference one-way-or-the-other?
Yes, I do have a preference, find another job and take it when it becomes available unless it is worse than the current one.
Do you perhaps have some indication that other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?
Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it. If no such being has revealed it is wrong to treat human beings in what I consider such a foul manner then I am in the same boat you appear to be in, I just don't like it but other people do, so it is a matter of might makes it so (no moral right involved). Some people like to love their neighbours, others like to eat them is has been witnesses in human history. What is your preference?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings?Apes and wolves seem to have evolved functional ethical (social) guidelines.Did your god provide an instruction manual for them too?
What kind of functional ethics? I do believe animals can show loyalty. I learn lessons from my dog. As for the wolf, "Don't eat my venison or I'll bite you? Submit unless you can show you are stronger. You know your place."
The instruction manual is called instinct, protection for survival, plus trial and error.
Created: