Carrie

Holy shit! I can't believe this post has lasted so long! I just came back to this site after not checking it for weeks. Yeah Theli, Fuck, this IS a long thread! Where the hell is this going?

Anyway, to let ya'll know, I've decided to be friends with Christians (but only the kind that are okay with me too). I decided I should mostly base my friendships on personality, not on what they believe. That's part of me still trying to be a good person and all, and trying to improve myself. But if I do meet a real live atheist, I will be more inclined to want to get to know that person.

yguy

Good deal. I don't think God asks more than that of anybody.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
But as I've shown, you can't rely on your OPINION or a consensus OPINION to establish the FACT of God's alleged inferior morals.

I don't have to rely on OPINION. I relied on your input here on this thread and on the Bible itself, and compared your alleged moral system to the undeniably extant consensus moral standards that I, you (I presume) and many others adhere to.

The God-based moral system you have described is INFERIOR as a moral system when compared to the consensus moral system that I have described, for as I have shown, using your arguments, and you have not refuted, under your moral system, actions such as killing your own child cannot be considered "objectively" (or in any way other than "what did God tell you to do?") immoral. Under the system I describe, such actions can be considered immoral. Not objectively as in "absolute", but that is not necessary for the moral system to work, and to be a superior moral system.

Under your system, morality and immorality is entirely dependent upon "what God tells you to do and not do" (or rather, what you think god is telling you to do and not do). The moral system you describe is no different than the one the 9/11 terrorists et al used to justify their actions. I consider their moral system inferior; do you? The moral system I describe is humanitarian, considering the good of the people involved; the moral system you describe (and ones like it) is not humanitarian, but is based on the whim of the God which you "serve".

(There's more below on why I can argue that the moral system I describe is superior to the one you describe).

Your argument that God is an inferior moral standard compared to your standard (or society's) doesn't work unless we all possess an inherent knowledge of what is/isn't morally right.

Sorry, you're absolute wrong. Apparently none of the arguments in my previous posts, esp. the one immediately preceding, have made even a dent in the armor you have constructed around your brain.

In the first place, the moral system I describe is more or less how at least some of the moral systems extant in the world today work. An exception is the moral system employed by the likes of the radical Islamic terrorists, and by the abortion clinic bombers, which by the way are very similar to the god-based moral system you've described where what is right and wrong depends upon what you think your particular god says is right and wrong.

And I must say that you have in no way established that we do all "possess an inherent knowledge of what is/isn't morally right." Indeed, the incontrovertible evidence that one could hardly find two people that possess identical personal moral standards, much less establish that all people possess the same personal moral standards, seriously undermines your assertion.

Further, even if we all do "possess an inherent knowledge of what is/isn't morally right" (which has been asserted but by no means established), the fact is that we all have our own, individual, and quite diverse personal moral standards; none of us are bound to, and most of us are unlikely to, strictly follow that asserted "inherent knowledge". So even in the case of this "even if", we must rely on a subjective, consensus moral system to control our behaviors in society.

You might as well say that because we Americans prefer beer compared to wine (which the French prefer), then you have established that beer is better than wine. But how does the American preference for beer establish that beer is better than wine? With relativism, no one can have any basis on which to establish that one is any better than the other.

We have given you, over and over again on this thread, reasons why, under a subjective, consensus moral system, indeed one moral/moral system can be considered "better" than another. There are the practical reasons, as I do not want to be hurt, killed, raped, or to have any of these things happen to my family, so I consider morals/moral systems that protect me and my family from such to be better than morals/moral systems that don't. In addition, empathy/compassion allow me to extend these desires to others, and so I can consider morals/moral systems that protect others from such to be better than morals/moral systems that don't.

So, if morality is really subjective and relative, it is no different than beer vs wine.

Quite a bit different, actually. Beer and wine are merely matters of taste or preference; morals are often matters of life and death. As shown above, there are compelling reasons why I, you and everyone can and should consider one moral/moral system superior to another. In short, it is to all humankind's mutual advantage to concur on and adhere to a moral system that is most beneficial to the most of us.

In that case, you can't establish that God's moral standard is inferior to some other standard.

Indeed I can, based on the reasons I gave above. God's moral system, as described in the Bible, and similar religion-based moral ssytems such as that used by the radical Islamic Terrorists, are piss-poor at protecting me and others from being hurt, killed, raped, etc. The evidence for this is right there in the Bible. The subjective, consensus moral standards I described and that I and others adhere to, with their practical and humanitarian basis, do a much better job at protecting me and others from being hurt, killed, raped, etc, though even they could use some improvement (mostly to weed out the remaining religious-based bits in favor of more humanitarian bits). Fortunately, since they are subjective and consensus-based, it is possible to adjust and improve them, which is often necessary due to the changing world (a flexibility not afforded by an "objective" moral system, I might add).

Therefore, I can, and have, established that the subjecive moral standards I and others adhere to, based on practical and humanitarian concerns, are superior to God's moral standard as described by you.

Mageth

Don't read this thread, then, or Keith may change your mind.

Mageth

And Carrie, the main reason this thread has gone on so long is similar to that scene from The Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia, where Mickey Mouse is battling the bucket brigade of brooms. The more of Keith's strawmen we knock down, the more pop right back up again.

Mageth

Keith, earlier on I asked you to describe how a moral system could be implemented based on what you describe. IIRC, you said something about how Christians already implement such a system. While I fail to see clear evidence that that is the case (I don't see much evidence of a common moral system among the world's Christians), I would like to know how, and if, you propose extending that moral system to the rest of the world.

Or are you working under the assumption that Christians are the only inhabitants of this earth that have a basis on which to act morally (which, if you are, does not match the evidence)?

Keith

Superior to who's? If you're going make a factual assertion (killing your child for cursing you is morally wrong) then in order for such an assertion to be valid it must be factual. Opinions simply will not do... even if nearly everyone on the planet agrees.

It seems that what you mean above is that...under moral relativism right and wrong are purely subjective, so killing one's child for cursing its parents CAN be morally wrong, and IS wrong for those who think it is wrong. That's fine as far as it goes, but it can never attain the factual status it needs, to prove that God's moral standard is inferior to some other moral standard.

Mageth

Superior to who's?

Superior to the God-based one you've described. I detailed the reasons why it can be considered superior in my recent post.

If you're going make a factual assertion (killing your child for cursing you is morally wrong) then in order for such an assertion to be valid it must be factual.

It is a fact that killing your child for cursing you is morally wrong under the current consensus moral system to which I and many others adhere, I assume including you. Outside any moral system, it is not a "fact", nor have you provided the least shred of evidence why it should be considered a fact outside such a moral system. You have not provided any evidence of the supposed "objective" morals which you have asserted.

Conversely, under the God-based moral system which you describe based on "What god says to do is morally right", I've shown why you can't consider it "objectively" morally wrong. Using your own arguments.

Opinions simply will not do... even if nearly everyone on the planet agrees.

Bullshit. Show me why it is not a fact that killing your child for cursing you is morally wrong under the consensus moral system.

It seems that what you mean above is that...under moral relativism right and wrong are purely subjective, so killing one's child for cursing its parents CAN be morally wrong, and IS wrong for those who think it is wrong.

And, in a society adhering to such a consensus moral system, it is also wrong for those who don't think it is wrong. And the moral system has built-in methods to enforce that moral if necessary (e.g. you could go to jail).

That's fine as far as it goes, but it can never attain the factual status it needs, to prove that God's moral standard is inferior to some other moral standard.

Once again, it is a fact that killing your child for cursing you is morally wrong under the consensus moral system I've described and that I, you, and many others adhere to.

Read my post. I established why God's moral standard is inferior. Simply stated, the consensus moral standard I describe is better at protecting human rights - for me and for others, than the God's moral standard that you describe. The OT implementation of God's moral laws, under which killing your child for cursing you is morally right, is glaring evidence of that.

Bottom line: there is no external, God-given or otherwise objective moral standard on which to base anything. You have not done anything except assert that there is, and you have as of yet not provided a viable alternative moral system under which we can all live based on your alleged God-based moral system which can be guaranteed to protect the rights of me, my family, and others. What we must do, and in fact what we actually do, is establish consensus moral systems to govern behavior.

Keith

It is a fact that in certain parts of Asia, rice is preferred over potatoes. In fact, even if everyone in the world preferred rice over potatoes, it still cannot be established on the basis of subjective opinion alone (no matter how factually firm the consensus), that rice is better than potatoes.

If you want to prove that God's moral standard is inferior to some other standard (x), the mere fact that a consensus of subjective opinion exists for x isn't sufficient. You must have facts; subjective opinions do not and cannot make an assertion valid. Philosophy 101

winstonjen

Good. What are god's laws other than subjective opinions? In Philosophy 101 you should also have learned about Socrates' quote - Is it approved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is approved by the gods?