IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th November 2012, 08:46 AM   #401
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Deliberate dishonesty seems to come from some Christians. Can you post the part where Bart Ehrman said "Jesus was certainly divine"? If Bart Ehrman didn't believe Jesus was divine, how is it that you came to believe that morals came from a mortal itinerant preacher?

No answer for the part about a god murdering millions in a global flood being moral or not?
Are you seriously expecting DOC to actually answer? He flees from the difficult questions.
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed, so Christians (who believe morality comes from Jesus) can claim morality does not come from an imaginary being (imaginary being was the wording mentioned in the quote I responded to.)
Where's Ehrman's evidence for his claims? We've dealt with this silliness before.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You are expecting an answer?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 09:13 AM   #402
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Can I get a different fortune cookie, this one doesn't make any sense.
Guys, this is too-easy. (I will pretend that youze jest, to mitigate my own embarrassment.)

Have to see the "whole picture" to be sure of any of its parts, as in the common adage (, or "fortune cookie",) "There's a grain of truth in every lie." Eg, how often do criminals incriminate themselves, ie, tell the truth, through their own lies/stupidity? Further ex, the reason that they perpetrate their crimes at all, a debate in its own right.

Why do the top poker players just "keep their mouths shut" among themselves? Soon as you "move away from" the everything, or in their case, nothing, can't be sure of anything, ie, tipping off the other guy.


P.S. Back to the gambling message-boards... the (hopelessly) addicted (to something other then message-boards in general) at least don't try to appear ingenious, lol.

Last edited by Garnabby; 25th November 2012 at 09:32 AM.
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 09:30 AM   #403
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Didn't help.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 09:46 AM   #404
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Or, when you for such in every lie." Eg, the (hopelessly) addicted (to first know the same at about 4 to 5 years of age. And, has "made up its limited scope, skipping other guy.

P.S. No philosophers/scientists were killed in the internet... and later as "i", and scarcely a sincere reply off the "whole picture" to be sure of age. And, has to literally want. It's odd "excuse" for such be everything, can't be sure of anything, can't be sure of age. And, has "made up its own lies/stupidity? Further
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 10:05 AM   #405
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Or, when you for such in every lie." Eg, the (hopelessly) addicted (to first know the same at about 4 to 5 years of age. And, has "made up its limited scope, skipping other guy.

P.S. No philosophers/scientists were killed in the internet... and later as "i", and scarcely a sincere reply off the "whole picture" to be sure of age. And, has to literally want. It's odd "excuse" for such be everything, can't be sure of anything, can't be sure of age. And, has "made up its own lies/stupidity? Further
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 11:11 AM   #406
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
Guys, this is too-easy. (I will pretend that youze jest, to mitigate my own embarrassment.)

Have to see the "whole picture" to be sure of any of its parts, as in the common adage (, or "fortune cookie",) "There's a grain of truth in every lie." Eg, how often do criminals incriminate themselves, ie, tell the truth, through their own lies/stupidity? Further ex, the reason that they perpetrate their crimes at all, a debate in its own right.

Why do the top poker players just "keep their mouths shut" among themselves? Soon as you "move away from" the everything, or in their case, nothing, can't be sure of anything, ie, tipping off the other guy.


P.S. Back to the gambling message-boards... the (hopelessly) addicted (to something other then message-boards in general) at least don't try to appear ingenious, lol.
The Magic 8 Ball says:

Better not tell you now
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 07:58 PM   #407
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
I'm still trying to understand how the idea that God sets forth right and wrong is not nothing more than might makes right. Further even if that is true just how does that put a stop to why something is right or wrong? After all the even if God decides what is right and wrong how does that prove that something is right or wrong? All it proves if it is true, is that God decided what is right and wrong we still can discuss if something is right or wrong regardless.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 09:53 PM   #408
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
I'm still trying to understand how the idea that God sets forth right and wrong is not nothing more than might makes right. Further even if that is true just how does that put a stop to why something is right or wrong? After all the even if God decides what is right and wrong how does that prove that something is right or wrong? All it proves if it is true, is that God decided what is right and wrong we still can discuss if something is right or wrong regardless.
It is might makes right. The trick is in thinking that there is actual might in being good, therefore God being as good as you can get is automatically able to dictate what is good or not, being both good and the source of good.

Once you can actually believe something like that is acceptable, you can believe God is somehow an authority on morality. You have to, otherwise you're left doubting the thing which you built all the meaning on your life upon.

I'd like to see someone explain to me when something stops being good or evil and becomes the other. Where is the line? It's easy to dismiss the things which obviously disgust us or delight us for being good or evil based on anthropomorphic factors, but if good and evil are real, then there has to be a spectrum or are things either one or the other?

Can something be both not good and not evil at the same time? What is it if it's neither good nor evil?
Halfcentaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 04:30 AM   #409
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well {Bart Ehrman} says "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book.

Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 05:07 AM   #410
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Didn't help.
Try this.

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?
As mentioned in the shroud thread, this is classic wooster behaviour; selective and distorted quotation from a work the wooster hasn't actually read.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 05:20 AM   #411
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well {Bart Ehrman} says "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book. He also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. I agree with those. He also says that he is an agnostic leaning more to Jesus not being divine -- I don't agree with that.
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Only valuing someone's opinion when it agrees with your own is very shallow and minimizes your argument...
So I guess this should apply to the skeptics who liked Ehrman's earlier books but now criticize his latest book where he says things like Jesus certainly existed.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Since you've cited Bart Ehrman, you must also agree with his opinion that there was no divine Jesus...
Not really, the main reason I brought Ehrman in here is because he had been a skeptic favorite, not because he was a favorite of mine.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
...Now that we've established that Jesus wasn't divine, can you answer the original question of why you believe a mortal man is the basis for morality?...
We haven't established Jesus wasn't divine.

And I don't believe a mortal man is the basis of morality because if that was true it would have been moral for the Nazis to exterminate Jews if they had won the war because they believed that was the right thing to do. Without an absolute morality from a God, morality is subjective. This is part of the reasoning for the "Moral Argument" for the existence of God. Or in other words Absolute Morality can't exist unless a God creates it. So if you believe absolute morality exists (example: the Holocaust would have been absolutely wrong even if the Nazis had won the war) then there must be a God who created that absolute morality.

Last edited by DOC; 26th November 2012 at 05:49 AM. Reason: add last quote and answer
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 05:33 AM   #412
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So I guess this should apply to the skeptics who liked Ehrman's earlier books but now criticize his latest book where he says things like Jesus certainly existed.
Ah, another demonstration of the rule of "so".

Please show where skeptics have referred to Ehrman's books because of who wrote them, rather than because of the arguments in them.

Quote:
Not really, the main reason I brought Ehrman in here is because he had been a skeptic favorite, not because he was a favorite of mine.
And because you persist in misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he's said.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 05:40 AM   #413
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post

We haven't established Jesus wasn't divine,
You have that backwards, of course.

Quote:
and I don't believe a mortal man is the basis of morality because if that was true it would have been moral for the Nazis to exterminate Jews if they had won the war because they believed that was the right thing to do. Without an absolute morality from a God, morality is subjective. This is part of the reason for the Moral Argument for the existence of God.
If you could do with your body what you can do with your brain, you'd make a great living as a contortionist.

Why do you think so little of your fellow humans? Do you really need an external agency to tell you the Nazis were wrong?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:04 AM   #414
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Why do you think so little of your fellow humans? Do you really need an external agency to tell you the Nazis were wrong?
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first, then you would complain to them "Guys its just wrong to put us in the gas houses, that's just the way it is, can't you guys see that."

Last edited by DOC; 26th November 2012 at 06:06 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:05 AM   #415
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first,
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:26 AM   #416
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first, then you would complain to them "Guys its just wrong to put us in the gas houses, that's just the way it is, can't you guys see that."
What, still this example?
If it was objectively immoral to commit the holocaust, why then did anyone even go along with it?
While a single sociopath or two is to be expected, a whole nation more or less just going along with it for that many years? Only possible if they did not find things morally objective, and that is only possible in your world if your god condoned the holocaust (at least in that area of the world).
Why did your god allow that? Why was morality altered in germany so only after the war the actions of the nazis were considered immoral?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:37 AM   #417
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first, then you would complain to them "Guys its just wrong to put us in the gas houses, that's just the way it is, can't you guys see that."
Yes. Obviously. Do you mean you can't see that?

Even if someone says, "God wants us to -------," if it's wrong, it's still wrong. For example, "God wants us to enslave Africans," or "God wants us to terrorize civilians." Putting "god wants" in front of something is not a magic phrase that absolves a person from any responsibility.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:39 AM   #418
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first, then you would complain to them "Guys its just wrong to put us in the gas houses, that's just the way it is, can't you guys see that."
Whereas if I were to say, "I say, chaps, God says you mustn't do this", they would stop at once?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 06:44 AM   #419
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Whereas if I were to say, "I say, chaps, God says you mustn't do this", they would stop at once?
That one always works.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 07:26 AM   #420
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So I guess this should apply to the skeptics who liked Ehrman's earlier books but now criticize his latest book where he says things like Jesus certainly existed.
You brought him into the discussion because you thought he supported your argument. You cited him, you get him whole. Your problem is that you desperately wish to conflate a mortal human itinerant preacher named Jesus with a divine being.

Quote:
Not really, the main reason I brought Ehrman in here is because he had been a skeptic favorite, not because he was a favorite of mine.
No, the main reason you brought him into the argument is because he said an itinerant preacher named Jesus may have existed. You now want to bait and switch that person with your imaginary divine being. There may have been a newspaperman named Clark Kent. Would his existence prove that Superman is real? If not, why not?

Quote:
We haven't established Jesus wasn't divine.
You should sue your logic teacher. Many here would appear as witnesses for your side. You've got it the wrong way around. The null hypothesis is that no itinerant preachers named Jesus were divine. You haven't established that any were divine.

Quote:
And I don't believe a mortal man is the basis of morality because if that was true it would have been moral for the Nazis to exterminate Jews if they had won the war because they believed that was the right thing to do.
Maybe you should define what you believe the word "moral" to be. You said earlier that it was moral to murder millions. Are you changing your mind now?

Quote:
Without an absolute morality from a God, morality is subjective.
No, making up a deity and conveniently aligning its morals with your own is subjective. That's what allowed white slave owners to sleep at night. Doesn't it make you wonder why Jesus advocated slavery? Do you think slavery is moral?

Quote:
This is part of the reasoning for the "Moral Argument" for the existence of God.
No, that is part of the excuse for claiming that your own morality is objective, claiming that it comes from a deity.

Quote:
Or in other words Absolute Morality can't exist unless a God creates it.
Absolute morality doesn't exist, therefore no god(s) exist. Do you know what the word absolute means?

Quote:
So if you believe absolute morality exists (example: the Holocaust would have been absolutely wrong even if the Nazis had won the war) then there must be a God who created that absolute morality.
If you believe absolute morality exists, is it absolutely immoral or absolutely moral to murder millions?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2012, 09:27 AM   #421
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
If you believe absolute morality exists, is it absolutely immoral or absolutely moral to murder millions?

Absolute like, you know, absolute? Or absolute like with a god exception? There are two (or more) kinds of absolute in the delusional world of god believers. There's the absolute we all agree on at one point in a discussion, and another absolute, the one that has a different meaning when they realize the first absolute demonstrates how silly their god belief actually is.

And that would, of course, bring us to the word "actually". Actually like, you know, actually? Or...
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:01 AM   #422
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Ah, another demonstration of the rule of "so".

Please show where skeptics have referred to Ehrman's books because of who wrote them, rather than because of the arguments in them.

And because you persist in misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he's said.
Well DOC hasn't read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" or probably any of his books. He relies on snippets carefully quote-mined by other god botherers.

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Indeed.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:23 AM   #423
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So I guess this should apply to the skeptics who liked Ehrman's earlier books but now criticize his latest book where he says things like Jesus certainly existed.

It's only two posts above your post. And it's quoted in the one immediately above your post. In BLOCK CAPS. And BOLD:
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?

Have you no sense of "Right" and "Wrong", DOC?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 27th November 2012 at 04:25 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 07:40 AM   #424
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Again, no, the rules haven't changed. The fundamental morality of the universe is the same today as it has always been -- good and evil haven't changed.

But one of the unchanging rules is "obey God." So the morality of particular actions as being in accordance with or contrary to God's commands can change. This doesn't change the underlying rules; just one particular referent of them.

After all, you wouldn't consider the rule "love everyone" to be changing just because people are constantly being born and dying and therefore the particular people you are to love changes. Similarly, the rule "protect your family" doesn't change just because under one set of circumstances that means stay in a town and in another set of circumstances that means leave the town. Neither does the rule "obey God" change just because God's instructions are different for different people.

The fundamental principles of morality are hardwired into the universe, objective, and unchanging. Their particular application may depend on particular circumstances.
I'm curious how you learn of these rules and come to trust they fall under the "obey God" umbrella. The biggest problem I have with the multitude of theists who claim that there is no objective morality without God is that they all seem to be using exactly the same system I'm using to determine just what is right and what is wrong -- using their limited, human reason and emotions.

There's a guy on talk radio who just did a show last week making this claim. He says whenever his belief seems to contradict what the Bible says, he doubts his belief, yet the Bible contains Leviticus 20:13 ("kill practicing homosexuals"). When one of his callers earlier in the election cycle floated the idea of such a practice, he repudiated it by calling it "Talibanesque" and said he'd oppose such a law. So, despite his claim, he's not really relying on what's in the Bible, yet he claims that reason and emotion (which he calls "the human heart") are completely inadequate for determining what is right and wrong.

I don't know if anything in that last paragraph describes you or not, but I'm genuinely curious what process you might follow to determine "God's rules", and how it might differ from the process I follow to determine mine.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 08:53 AM   #425
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I don't know if anything in that last paragraph describes you or not, but I'm genuinely curious what process you might follow to determine "God's rules", and how it might differ from the process I follow to determine mine.
Generally it's the same, with flimsy rationalizations papered over the cognitive dissonance that comes of believing the Bible is the ultimate source of morality even when you disagree with it.

In Avalon's case, (correct me if I'm wrong) he argues the Old Testament was only ever meant to apply to Israelites. As he is not an Israelite, the Torah (while 100% still in force for ethnic Jews) is for him entirely voluntary, and all that stuff in the NT about the Law of God still applying to everyone, everywhere is really referring to an unspecified, underlying rule set that basically just means you're going to hell unless you praise Jebus.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 08:54 AM   #426
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I'm curious how you learn of these rules and come to trust they fall under the "obey God" umbrella. The biggest problem I have with the multitude of theists who claim that there is no objective morality without God is that they all seem to be using exactly the same system I'm using to determine just what is right and what is wrong -- using their limited, human reason and emotions.
(Snipped)
I think this is very true. We do not learn morality from religion, we shop around for a religion that best fits our existing sense of right and wrong -- pretty much how we pick political parties and choose almost anything. We evaluate and select what we perceive to be the best on offer at any one time.

I think this mechanism goes a long way toward explaining why there are different religions, why they split up, and why there are different styles even under the same religious title, so that someone who is Baptist can be loyal to one preacher -- someone who "speaks to their heart," which is another way of saying, "makes sense to me."

It's also probably the reason I am an atheist. Without any religious doctrine or belief system which matches my naturalistic view, I choose what best fits how I already perceive the world to be.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 08:59 AM   #427
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
In Avalon's case, (correct me if I'm wrong) he argues the Old Testament was only ever meant to apply to Israelites. As he is not an Israelite, the Torah (while 100% still in force for ethnic Jews) is for him entirely voluntary, and all that stuff in the NT about the Law of God still applying to everyone, everywhere is really referring to an unspecified, underlying rule set that basically just means you're going to hell unless you praise Jebus.

This, presumably, means that there can be no absolute morality - what is "right" varies according to who and when you are.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:04 AM   #428
jj
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,382
Why won't the people here who say "obey god" tell me which one? I mean, we humans have invented 100's of them.
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:04 AM   #429
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
This, presumably, means that there can be no absolute morality - what is "right" varies according to who and when you are.
No, it's absolute as all hell, just arbitrary.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:13 AM   #430
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I'm curious how you learn of these rules and come to trust they fall under the "obey God" umbrella. The biggest problem I have with the multitude of theists who claim that there is no objective morality without God is that they all seem to be using exactly the same system I'm using to determine just what is right and what is wrong -- using their limited, human reason and emotions.
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.

However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:18 AM   #431
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.

However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.
That would be fine and dandy if any god actually existed.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:29 AM   #432
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.

However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.
But:
1: How do you know what rules apply at what times if the rulebook(s) given can't get that straight themselves
2: How do you accept the given fact that what is considered moral by the majority of mankind is utterly fluid
3: I have no wish to play at all, yet by your analogy I cannot opt out of the game, nor did I have a choice in starting to play it. Because your analogy of a game with a referee setting the rules misses the part where the referee abducts children, teaches them to play the game AND only the game without disclosing all the rules and punishes them severely even if they break rules they do not know about, while never telling them that there is a world out there where the game is just not important.

You claim we have to play the game. Why should we?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:06 AM   #433
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Don't try to extend the analogy that far. Morality is inherent in being human in this world. As long as we are capable of making moral and immoral decisions, we are participating in this system. It's not possible to decide not to participate, any more than we can decide not to participate in gravity.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:15 AM   #434
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Don't try to extend the analogy that far. Morality is inherent in being human in this world. As long as we are capable of making moral and immoral decisions, we are participating in this system. It's not possible to decide not to participate, any more than we can decide not to participate in gravity.
Fair enough.
I can test gravity. It behaves a certain way (the whole mass/distance thing).
And as far as test experiments go (I'd say Gallileo) it has behave that way without deviation. It is indeed, as far as we can see, an objective force that works troughout the observable universe. And has for at least 400 years, but there is no indication it ever deviated at all in any written history, nor in the geological record.

What tests do you have for morality that show a similar effect?
And how do you explain that morality can vary geographically, not to mention in time?
And in fact, during a single human's lifetime?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:25 AM   #435
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And how do you explain that morality can vary geographically, not to mention in time?
And in fact, during a single human's lifetime?
What was god up to during the Nazi period?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:29 AM   #436
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.

However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.

If you're ever interested in learning the meaning of "objective", just let someone know, okay? Your continued misuse of the word looks pretty foolish.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:34 AM   #437
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
As I already explained:

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
No, "different for different people" does not mean "subjective." Are orders issued to soliders in the US army subjective? Is your SAT score subjective? How about your blood pressure?

Something can be specific to you or apply selectively to you and not others and still be entirely objective.
So, with that in mind, if you'd like to justify your assertion that my characterization of morality would constitute subjective rather than objective morality, please do so.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:43 AM   #438
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Fair enough.
I can test gravity. It behaves a certain way (the whole mass/distance thing).
And as far as test experiments go (I'd say Gallileo) it has behave that way without deviation. It is indeed, as far as we can see, an objective force that works troughout the observable universe. And has for at least 400 years, but there is no indication it ever deviated at all in any written history, nor in the geological record.
The relationship between distance and mass doesn't vary, but gravity, as measured, will vary depending on circumstances. What we'd like to make the analogy work is something fixed about morality and something plastic as well.

Quote:
What tests do you have for morality that show a similar effect?
And how do you explain that morality can vary geographically, not to mention in time?
And in fact, during a single human's lifetime?
My test would be to claim that at no time, as far as we know, humans were without any moral sense at all -- granted, this is hard to capture in pre-history. That would address the fixed part. Arguably, to be human, one has a moral sense.

The variation can then be explained by looking for some root properties that are applied differently. So, for example, I might look for something like the concept of "bad" and then say, that while different people in different times apply the label to different experiences, they all have a box we can identify as "bad."

When AvalonXQ says there is something inherent in humans that we can call a moral sense, he's paralleling the materialist viewpoint. He may claim this sense is put in us by a deity, while I claim it's biological, but we are both talking about the same structure. And it's this structure that can be fixed and absolute (at least as absolute as evolution will allow) while still giving us different actions at different times.

In this framing, Hitler thinks he's doing good by eliminating Jews and the Allies think they are doing good by fighting Hitler. The actions are radically different, but the genesis, a sense of doing good, is shared. And just as the force due to gravity is measured relative to where we are, so too is morality measured in a subjective fashion while still having some root and objective properties.

Last edited by marplots; 27th November 2012 at 10:45 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:49 AM   #439
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
So, with that in mind, if you'd like to justify your assertion that my characterization of morality would constitute subjective rather than objective morality, please do so.

"Objective", by your interpretation, as it applies to you, arbitrarily, is not definitively objective. The honest way to communicate would be, of course, to use words in a more commonly accepted way rather than as more or less opposites to their common meaning. But it's your agenda. You can choose to communicate clearly or not. So just go ahead and use whatever words you want in whatever way you like if it makes that belief in magical beings seem less silly.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:51 AM   #440
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It's only two posts above your post. And it's quoted in the one immediately above your post. In BLOCK CAPS. And BOLD:


Have you no sense of "Right" and "Wrong", DOC?
I believe he says he got his sense of right and wrong from god so no he doesn't have one of his own.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.