Keith

When religious people persecute other people for heresy or nonbelief, it is morally wrong and reprehensible. But Christian morality acknowledges that human beings all have inherent rights, and that our inherent rights are given to us by God.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
How can a person claiming to be autonomous (in effect claiming one's self to be a god) ever really get to know God?

Huh? How would being autonomous make one a god, or claiming to be so equate to claiming one is a god?

If God regenerates your soul causing you to become willing to believe in Him and trust in Him, it will be because of God's mercy on you. God can't fail to save even one of His elect, and grace can neither be demanded by man or owed by God.

Yuck. Your god sounds like one of those aliens from '50s sci-fi movies that invades your brain or takes over your body. "Invasion of the Soul Snatcher." So much for "free will". Tell your god thanks, but no thanks; I'll do without his "mercy" and keep my brain.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
When religious people persecute other people for heresy or nonbelief, it is morally wrong and reprehensible.

But it wouldn't be if God told you to, right? That's your only escape from the problem of the OT. Remember all those non-Israelites in the OT that were killed for not being of the Chosen religion, and worshipping (gasp) Baal? Then there's god's command to not suffer witches to live. And right after it, in Exodus 22, we find:

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

And then there's the whole hell thing. You say god cannot commit moral wrong, and here you say it is morally wrong and reprehensible to persecute people for heresy or nonbelief, yet you believe in a god who is going to toss all heretics and non-believers in hell to suffer for eternity.

But Christian morality acknowledges that human beings all have inherent rights, and that our inherent rights are given to us by God.

And what the Lord giveth, he taketh away.

I guess one of those rights isn't "free will" and self-determination, as indicated by your preceding post. God will possess the soul of whomever he wishes, apparently, in spite of any "inherent rights" he's given them.

winstonjen

No, the sad this is that you worship such a monster.

Doesn't the bible say 'Ask and it shall be given to you?'

And your god does change his mind quite often in the bible.

The right to burn for eternity. The right to have religion forced down your throat, and so on, and so forth.

Biff the unclean

The sad thing is that because you feel that only your standard for what constitutes a convincing explanation is acceptable, and you have assumed that God owes you an explanation, you can't get what you say you want.
The reason god can't give an explanation is that he is a fictional character. The only actions and interactions he can perform are part of the story line of the books he is a character in. He does not exist in the real world and so is incapable of interacting with it.
How can a person claiming to be autonomous (in effect claiming one's self to be a god) ever really get to know God?
No one claimed to be autonomous. All the Atheists here are claiming to be a part of society following the rule, mores and standards of that society.
It is impossible for God to change His own nature and bow to your demands.
Just as it is impossible for any fictional character.

If God…
There are no gods
… regenerates your soul…
There's no such thing as a soul
...causing you to become willing to believe in Him and trust in Him, it will be because of God's mercy on you.
What would cause me to believe in god would be evidence that there was a god. That or if I suffered some mental aberration, a break down or a blow to the head, that would cause me to lose the ability to think rationally
God can't fail to save even one of His elect, and grace can neither be demanded by man or owed by God.
Oooooooooh!!!! So you are "Elect" now, are you?
Have you any idea how pathetic that is? "Look at me, I'm a good boy. I'm special. The invisible superman in the sky picked me to be his pal."
Has your life seemed such a waste to you that you have to grasp at fairytales to feed your ego? Can you possibly hold yourself in such low esteem?

But Christian morality acknowledges that human beings all have inherent rights, and that our inherent rights are given to us by God.
No it doesn't. That's Humanism you are talking about.

Keith

Keith: "Atheists can believe that murder, or child molesting is morally wrong but it would be silly for them to argue their case to anyone."

Mageth:"Why? Both cause harm to others (individually) and to society in general. As an atheist, I want to get along in society as best I can, without myself being murdered or molested, and without my children being murdered and molested. It's definitely in my best interest, and in the interest of society and general, to consider child molestation and murder wrong."

Keith: "If there is no God, how do you know that it is morally wrong to harm others? How do you know that it's morally wrong to harm society? Why do your subjective values determine what is right for society? Do your own subjective values (I want to get along in society; I don't want to be murdered or molested) make murder and child molesting morally wrong?

Are you just saying that to YOU murder and child molesting seem morally wrong, but that is just your own subjective opinion? IOW, are they morally wrong for everyone or are murder and child molesting wrong only according to your own "moral code"?

Mageth

Jesus H. Christ, Keith, how many times do you expect me to answer the same questions and refute the same strawmen?

Originally posted by Keith
If there is no God, how do you know that it is morally wrong to harm others?

Asked and answered, in the post you were responding to and in many other posts.

And I ask you, if there is a god, how do you know that it is morally wrong to harm others? The bible is full of examples where God allegedly told people to do just that. Remember, you've said that the rule is that "If god tells you to do it, it's morally right; if god tells you not to do it, it's morally wrong." It would follow from that that if god told you to harm others, it would be morally right to do so. Indeed, that's the claim you made to defend the OT laws that, for example, directed parents to kill their rebellious children.

How do you know that it's morally wrong to harm society?

One more time, societies form consensus moral standards that define what is morally right and wrong within the societies. If I want to live at peace in a society, I preferably follow the moral standard of that society.

Why do your subjective values determine what is right for society?

You're repeating the same strawman which I and others have torn down several times. I've never claimed my subjective values determine what is right for society.

Do your own subjective values (I want to get along in society; I don't want to be murdered or molested) make murder and child molesting morally wrong?

Yes, my own subjective values make it personally morally wrong for me to do that. In addition, the consensus moral standards of our society make those things wrong within this society. This is possible because most people in this society share similar subjective values, based on the same practicality and empathy/compassion as mine.

Note that there is an extant humanistic moral or ethical standard which I and many in the world adhere to that says that murder and child molestation are morally wrong for everyone, based on the same commonly, but not universally, held values. And it was created without relying on God.

Are you just saying that to YOU murder and child molesting seem morally wrong, but that is just your own subjective opinion?

No. See above, and many of my other posts on this thread where I've refuted this strawman several times.

IOW, are they morally wrong for everyone or just for you?

See above. But I'll reiterate; they're morally wrong within an individual, group, society, or world that has a moral standard that holds those things to be morally wrong.

Outside of such moral standards, there is no moral right or wrong. This is a truism, and one supported by you earlier in the thread when you claimed that someone (like Abraham) that does something not knowing or realizing it is morally wrong is not committing a moral wrong. Without a moral standard, personal, societal, or otherwise, there is no knowledge or realization that anything is morally right or wrong.

In hindsight, I probably should have just told you to read the damned thread over again, as all this has been asked and answered many times.

Biff the unclean

I don't see how this can be said any more clearly than Mageth has put it. But then I don't see how it could be more clear than the first several times he said the same thing. I'm starting to get a creepy feeling…Keith you keep asking the same questions over and over as though you hoped to get a different response. Back in the days when you were claiming to be an Atheist were you behaving immorally? Are you trying to get someone to tell you that that's the way Atheists behave to give yourself an excuse for having done something you know is wrong?

Keith

No. I'm being told repeatedly that I'm attacking a strawman. Since this is definitely NOT my intention, I just wanted to make certain that I understand what your morality entails, and what it doesn't.

winstonjen

Then may I suggest you do what Mageth said, and re-read this thread.