Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Keith
Then are you saying that what you consider to be morally "good" (or morally "right") is not the same thing as the STANDARD by which societies judge the goodness or rightness of morality?

What STANDARD? There is no one STANDARD.

I'm saying that there's a moral system to which I (and many others) adhere that holds that genocide and such are bad.

Is this an admission that your "societal consensus" standard is Amoral?

No. I don't think you know what "amoral" means. The societal consensus sets up a moral standard under which its adherents can behave morally according to that moral standard. The fact that there is an external societal consensus under which adherents may behave morally is the opposite of amoral.

I'm still wondering...what is the relevance of what YOU consider morally "good"?

I consider it good that I (and others) adhere to a moral standard that stands against suffering caused by genocide, terrorism, and such. I would assume you consider it good for you to do the same.

It sounds like you are trying to distance yourself from your own societal consensus standard when it is applied to, for example, the Nazi's.

How so? And it's not my "own societal consensus standard". That's contradictory. And I agree with the societal consensus that declars acts such as those committed by the Nazis as bad. I'm not trying to distance myself from that.

Keith · 07-18-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe V.

"And you have yet to prove that moral laws come from any god."

Your god never told me he left you in charge. What makes you think you have any right to speak for your god? Why should we listen to you? It isn't god that I lack faith in, I don't even believe there is one, it's the people who claim to speak for god, namely you. Why should I trust you?"

I didn't make that my goal in this thread. I'm just demonstrating that without God, morality is arbitrary, subjective, and relative.

I never made the claim that God left me in charge. I have the right to speak for God in the same way that you have the right to speak against God. And, true, you don't have to trust me.

Keith · 07-18-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

"So, Keith, do you consider that an interest in discussing one's views with religious people automatically means that one believes in their particular god? Or do you not know of any circumstances under which one can talk about religion and still remain an atheist?"

No. And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist. I once called myself an atheist too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate.

Biff the unclean · 07-18-2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
This assumes that an individual can commit terrorism and not even know it is morally wrong. Under your moral view this must be a real possibility. Under Christianity it is not.

Please ignore the entire history of Christianity and take Keith's word for this. Those weren't Real Christians� pulling those shenanigans inthenameofgod for the past couple of thousand years
LOL That business about telling the truth must have been only for the Israelites too

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Keith
This assumes that an individual can commit terrorism and not even know it is morally wrong. Under your moral view this must be a real possibility.

It's not a possibility, it's a fact. The 9/11 terrorists did not know that what they did was morally wrong under their moral system. Under their moral system (one based on an Abrahamic religion which also believes what God commands is morally right, I must add), it was morally right for them to do what they did.

Under Christianity it is not.

You contradict yourself. Under Christianity as you define it, if God commanded you to commit an act of terrorism, then you would know that it was morally right to do it, just like the 9/11 terrorists claim.

Further, you claimed earlier that Abraham did not commit a moral wrong by having sex with Hagar because he did not know it was morally wrong. And I assume (and with your system it seems a valid assumption, but correct me if I'm wrong) you would also argue that the Israelites committed the acts they are portrayed as having committed in the OT against the Canaanites not "knowing" that what they were doing was morally wrong. God commanded them to, after all.

Biff the unclean · 07-18-2003, 03:18 PM

And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist.
That's okay, you've shown us what you beliefs are worth

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 03:25 PM

I'm just demonstrating that without God, morality is arbitrary,

That you haven't demonstrated. But you have well demonstrated the arbitrariness of morality with God. Whatever God says to do is moral, even if it's killing children!

subjective,

Yes, morality is subjective. I don't think anyone here has denied that. And you have well demonstrated the subjectiveness of morality with God.

and relative.

Yes, morality can be "relative", as well it should be. And you have well demonstrated the relativeness of morality with God. Remember the bit about God giving different moral systems to different people?

What you haven't demonstrated is that there is an objective standard on which to base morality. Nor have you demonstrated the need for an objective standard for morality.

You've only demonstrated that the morality you're defending is arbitrary, subjective and relative.

Keith · 07-18-2003, 03:27 PM

Keith: "Is this an admission that your "societal consensus" standard is Amoral?"

Mageth: "No. I don't think you know what "amoral" means. The societal consensus sets up a moral standard under which its adherents can behave morally according to that moral standard. The fact that there is an external societal consensus under which adherents may behave morally is the opposite of amoral."

Keith: "Then under your definition of morality, if a particular society reaches the consensus that it has a moral duty to send the Jews to the death camps, then by virtue of its consensus, (under your definition of morality) it is moral for that society to do so?

How then, is it possible for you personally to have a different definition of what is moral, (as opposed to the Nazi's) if, as you've said, your definition of morality is defined by the consensus of a particular society?

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 03:30 PM

No. And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist. I once called myself an atheist too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate.

I'm not an Atheist because I call myself an Atheist, I'm an Atheist because I am an Atheist.

An Atheist is best defined, IMHO, as one who lacks belief in god(s). I lack belief in god(s). Therefore, I am really an Atheist.

And I could say, just out of spite, "I don't believe that anyone (including Keith) can really be a Christian (as I believe that no one really believes in a god). I once called myself a Christian too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate." Where would that get us? Do you think I know, or should claim to know, what you really believe?

Keith · 07-18-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"If God commanded me to kill my child, I would not obey God, and I would be morally right in doing so. You're saying that the moral to obey God overrides every other moral position. You're saying that there is nothing moral or immoral other than obeying or disobeying God. So you can't claim that murder, rape, terrorism, or any other action is objectively (or even subjectively) immoral.

Congratulations; you've completely eliminated moral standards.

It scares the living shit out of me that some Xians think like this."

You wouldn't obey God. If you were a German citizen during WW2, would you have obeyed the Nazi's if they told you to kill Jews? If not, why not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2003, 03:05 PM	#351
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith Then are you saying that what you consider to be morally "good" (or morally "right") is not the same thing as the STANDARD by which societies judge the goodness or rightness of morality? What STANDARD? There is no one STANDARD. I'm saying that there's a moral system to which I (and many others) adhere that holds that genocide and such are bad. Is this an admission that your "societal consensus" standard is Amoral? No. I don't think you know what "amoral" means. The societal consensus sets up a moral standard under which its adherents can behave morally according to that moral standard. The fact that there is an external societal consensus under which adherents may behave morally is the opposite of amoral. I'm still wondering...what is the relevance of what YOU consider morally "good"? I consider it good that I (and others) adhere to a moral standard that stands against suffering caused by genocide, terrorism, and such. I would assume you consider it good for you to do the same. It sounds like you are trying to distance yourself from your own societal consensus standard when it is applied to, for example, the Nazi's. How so? And it's not my "own societal consensus standard". That's contradictory. And I agree with the societal consensus that declars acts such as those committed by the Nazis as bad. I'm not trying to distance myself from that.

07-18-2003, 03:18 PM	#355
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith This assumes that an individual can commit terrorism and not even know it is morally wrong. Under your moral view this must be a real possibility. It's not a possibility, it's a fact. The 9/11 terrorists did not know that what they did was morally wrong under their moral system. Under their moral system (one based on an Abrahamic religion which also believes what God commands is morally right, I must add), it was morally right for them to do what they did. Under Christianity it is not. You contradict yourself. Under Christianity as you define it, if God commanded you to commit an act of terrorism, then you would know that it was morally right to do it, just like the 9/11 terrorists claim. Further, you claimed earlier that Abraham did not commit a moral wrong by having sex with Hagar because he did not know it was morally wrong. And I assume (and with your system it seems a valid assumption, but correct me if I'm wrong) you would also argue that the Israelites committed the acts they are portrayed as having committed in the OT against the Canaanites not "knowing" that what they were doing was morally wrong. God commanded them to, after all.

07-18-2003, 03:18 PM	#356
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist. That's okay, you've shown us what you beliefs are worth

07-18-2003, 03:25 PM	#357
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'm just demonstrating that without God, morality is arbitrary, That you haven't demonstrated. But you have well demonstrated the arbitrariness of morality with God. Whatever God says to do is moral, even if it's killing children! subjective, Yes, morality is subjective. I don't think anyone here has denied that. And you have well demonstrated the subjectiveness of morality with God. and relative. Yes, morality can be "relative", as well it should be. And you have well demonstrated the relativeness of morality with God. Remember the bit about God giving different moral systems to different people? What you haven't demonstrated is that there is an objective standard on which to base morality. Nor have you demonstrated the need for an objective standard for morality. You've only demonstrated that the morality you're defending is arbitrary, subjective and relative.

07-18-2003, 03:27 PM	#358
Keith Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S. England, and S. California Posts: 616	Keith: "Is this an admission that your "societal consensus" standard is Amoral?" Mageth: "No. I don't think you know what "amoral" means. The societal consensus sets up a moral standard under which its adherents can behave morally according to that moral standard. The fact that there is an external societal consensus under which adherents may behave morally is the opposite of amoral." Keith: "Then under your definition of morality, if a particular society reaches the consensus that it has a moral duty to send the Jews to the death camps, then by virtue of its consensus, (under your definition of morality) it is moral for that society to do so? How then, is it possible for you personally to have a different definition of what is moral, (as opposed to the Nazi's) if, as you've said, your definition of morality is defined by the consensus of a particular society?

07-18-2003, 03:30 PM	#359
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	No. And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist. I once called myself an atheist too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate. I'm not an Atheist because I call myself an Atheist, I'm an Atheist because I am an Atheist. An Atheist is best defined, IMHO, as one who lacks belief in god(s). I lack belief in god(s). Therefore, I am really an Atheist. And I could say, just out of spite, "I don't believe that anyone (including Keith) can really be a Christian (as I believe that no one really believes in a god). I once called myself a Christian too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate." Where would that get us? Do you think I know, or should claim to know, what you really believe?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.