himynameisPwn

Many people hold to the truth of the lockness monster. Many people hold onto superstitions, your just admitting you'd believe that over fact. I don't see how you can argue on a board thats composed mostly of naturalists totally ignoring scientific knowledge to the contrary. Just saying you'd ignore scientific evidence over superstition makes your opinion that much less forceful.

Tercel

himynameisPwn,
If you read my post carefully, you'll see I'm saying that I would accept scientific evidence.
However lacking sure archeological evidence that it certainly didn't happen, historical writings saying it did happen are sufficient to me to suggest it did.

Bill Snedden

Actually, no. The Bible gives several examples where God, in His great mercy, orders all men, women, & children of a particular race or nation to be put to the sword. With such a mass slaughter of entire groups of people (the Amalekites and the Midianites, for example) there must surely have been at least a couple of pregnant women among the dead. Therefore, "do not kill the unborn" cannot be a Christian moral absolute.

Under Orthodox Christian ethical theory, there is only one moral absolute: obey God. Under this worldview, human life has no inherent value; we are God's chattel and He may do with us as He pleases.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Tercel

Since we have so many votes of confidence in the moral argument, perhaps it's time to explore it a bit.
We would seem to have 3 possibilities for morality:
There is some moral standard universally applicable (Objectivism)
Moral standards differ validly from person to person and/or culture to culture (Relativism)
There are no moral standards (Nihilism)

Relativism falls apart under the weight of lacking any coherency whatsoever. Nihilism is unacceptable. Objectivism requires God.
Therefore God. Any questions?

If anyone feels they can demonstrate some logically coherency in Relativism, go for it. If anyone's a Nihilist and can really face everything it entails... well good luck to you, you're braver than me: Nietzsche went mad, I hope you do better.
But it's those who insist that Objectivism can be held sensibly without God that I am really interested in so far as concerns this argument.

I believe it was Kant who thought the existence of a universal imperitive ought could only be possible with a universal imperator.
Indeed if there is merely some "universal moral standard" floating out there somewhere in the realm of the abstract then I see no reason why I should be under any obligation to obey it. It can "ought" away all it likes for all I care. And if I ignore it, what crime am I think commiting? -Going against the wishes of a non-thinking entity? [sarcasm]Sure...[/sarcasm]
Not to mention of course the reason for the existence of this moral "ought" is problematic to say the least. Lowder in the recent thread on the subject simply asserted it was a brute necessity. But it would seem to be a fairly crazy brute necessity - a law concerned with the inter-relation of intelligent beings a brute necessity?? Clearly the naturalist has more imagination than I can bring to bear on the subject.

So perhaps this moral standard is instead the dictate of some unchanging being? But if this being has nothing to do with us and our world, or does nothing other than set this moral law, I have no more reason to obey its dictates than I do the dictates of Joe Bloggs down the road. Neither, it is generally agreed does Might alone make right. Only it seems, if it is to this being that we owe absolutely everything -that everything "we" have in life really belongs to this being and is only "ours" so long as this being gives us the usage of it- would we seem to have a complete obligation to obey the dictates of this being.

In one foul swoop we appear to have arrived at the conclusion that to accept objective morality one needs must accept it as coming from a being who is unchanging, universal, the creator and sustainer of all and concerned with our interactions amongst ourselves. And it is that which we know as God.

To me that is the moral argument in a nutshell.
Have fun with the nut-cracker...

Tercel

Is torturing small children right or wrong? Is slavery right or wrong? Is forcing atheists on pain of death to declare belief in God right or wrong?
Laugh away...

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

NumberTenOx

I don't think any atheist would assert that morality is absolute or (totally) objective. We have a shared set of morals because of the way our brains work and because of the rules imposed by society.

Is it wrong to kill? Yes and no. We all feel it is wrong. Society will (usually) make us suffer if we kill. But that's it. There is no greater moral authority. Sorry.

That may be unacceptable to you. You may not be able to exist in a world where there is no moral authority above the minds of man. I'm sorry for that, too.

But wishing for the world to be the way you want it to be does not make it so. You cannot conclude that - because the world is not the way you want it to be - that therefore it is the way you want it to be.

Many people have posted here, and I believe, that morals come from evolution, both biological and sociological. That makes it very difficult to make moral arguments that have logical consistency, but just because it is difficult does not make it wrong.

One last thing, we are not really that far apart. We both believe in (most of) the same morals. We both believe that the origin of things is mysterious - you call that mystery God and I call it a mystery. Why so much heat and light?

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>

emur

Tercel said:
"Is torturing small children right or wrong? Is slavery right or wrong? Is forcing atheists on pain of death to declare belief in God right or wrong?
Laugh away..."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! But I'm not laughing. The god of the bible orders the slaughter of children, upholds slavery in the law, and does force belief on pain of death.

One may be able to get an objective morality from the god of the bible, but it's not a morality worthy of service to humanity. When I left evangelicalism, I washed my hands of that filth once and for all!!!

The objective morality of so many of the followers of the god of the bible that I have been in contact with contains rigidity, pride, arrogance, hypocrisy, doctrine over human need, image over compassion, law over grace...well you get the point.

You want objective morality? Please don't get it from the bible. It will not do any of us any good!

Mel

Tercel

NumberTenOx,
Thankyou for your response.
I am aware "wanting" God to exist does not make it so. Yet it is my opinion that nihilism is an unacceptable position, inevitably leading to meaninglessness and absurdity. If you can face that, then great. However, is there any point in facing it if we don't have to? If it's at all possible that nihilism is not the case, then what do we lose by positively believing that it is not? Consider if nihilism is true, and we believe it isn't, what then do we lose? Nothing worth having. But consider if nihilism is false, but we believe it isn't, what then do we lose? Everything.

himynameisPwn

Tercel, you do realize you represent the lowest level of morality? Plus the fact the God whiped out the entire planet doesn't lead me to believe he should be the highest source of authority.

Also, Id like to see your scientific evidence supporting a God. Not the bible, because the bible is history, proving the hostory right doesnt make the claims of the authors true. Show me your scientific evidence that leads you to believe in God, and make sure its possible to prove, not just what science currently cant prove(i.e. the cause of the big bang argument).

himynameisPwn

Ah, pascals argument. I suggest you look in the kiosk, pascals argument is horrible, and the fact that you suggest to overlook the truth, really hurts your argument on a board of truth seekers. Essentially, you are telling me, on a board where I come to look for the meaning of life, truth, jokes, etc. that I shouldn't look for theses things, they might scare me and I'm better off being ignorant? Well, if ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of euphoria. (sorry for the personal attack, I was waiting to use that one)