Joe V.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the distinct impression Mageth, Biff and the others have been arguing the same thing throughout this thread. Society as a whole dictates what are morals are. That's what the Constitution is for. We Americans debate, namely via Congress, what's right and what's wrong, using the underlying principles of the Constitution as our foundation, and history serves as our guide, not the Bible (do you know why we don't use the Bible as our guide?). We have the benefit of history and experience that tells us what's worked for society and what hasn't.

So why do you think your arguments have any credibility?

Mageth

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?

Once again, for the umpteenth time: it is obviously moral for them to do so under that moral system. How many times do I have to say it? This is so obvious that I can't believe you keep bringing it up. And this isn't "my definition" of morality; this is essentially the definition of morality.

And it's a definition you agreed with when you claimed that the moral system spelled out in the OT for the Jews morally justified such things as killing rebellious children.

But that does not mean, again obviously, that I or other societal moral standards must consider what that society (Nazi Germany, or Israel) did under its moral system as moral. Obviously, the moral standard(s) that most in the world adhered to at that time, and now, consider what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII as immoral, and the killing of rebellious children as immoral.

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?

Did I say that, or is this another strawman you're constructing? Strawman, I think.

Once again, it's not me "personally". I adhere to societal moral standards which I agree (for the most part) with. One can have personal moral standards as well as adhering to or agreeing with external group and societal moral standards at many levels.

And you answered your own question. Different societies define different moralities. I adhere to a moral system which I agree with (note that that doesn't mean that I personally agree with every moral standard of the societies I live in). Once again, obviously.

Keith

I agree that in almost all cases, a parent killing their own child is horribly immoral. It makes sense that I understand that it is wrong. Because God has made it perfectly clear, I can know that certain acts are morally wrong.

But what if we view this from the atheistic viewpoint? If God doesn't exist then this would merely be your own personal opinion, no? If it is morally wrong for a parent to kill their own child, why is it morally wrong, and how do you--an atheist, know this?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
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?

If I, meaning the "I" I am now, with my full knowledge, moral standards, and personality, were transported back to 1944 Nazi Germany, no, I would not have obeyed the Nazi order to kill Jews, because I consider such an act wrong and disobeying such an order right (that should be obvious, from this thread).

If I were a German raised in Munich in the 1920s and 1930s and received such an order, who knows? I would be a different person, and I can't speak for what other people might do. Obviously, there would be a good chance that I, the German, would obey the order, as most given such orders did.

Just like I, if the "I" I am now was transported back to 1968 or 1969 and drafted to go to Vietnam, would flee to Canada or go to jail before going. However, the "I" that was in 1968 would have gone. Heck, I wanted to go but was too young by three years or so. Odd, isn't it?

And perhaps that will serve to illustrate why such "what if" questions are a bit silly and pointless.

Biff the unclean

You wouldn't obey God.
Of course not, don't be silly. I wouldn't obey god for the same reason I wouldn't obey Prof. Dumbledore--they are characters in a novel.

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?
Nazis on the other hand, are real. I would obey them out of fear of the physical harm that they would do to me. While doing so I would be behaving immorally.

But that's the same story you have with god too, isn't it. Obey him or suffer the torments of hell for eternity. A punishment far worst than any mere Nazi could devise. So morality has nothing to do with it for you does it? You are afraid of god, you are afraid to even disagree with god. So you do what you are told and claim that it is moral no matter what it is.

I'm not afraid of your god because his story is so ridiculous I find it hard to believe that anyone would fall for it. Therefore I don't have to abandon morality for that monster.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
I agree that in almost all cases, a parent killing their own child is horribly immoral.

Name me a case where it's not, according to the moral standard you adhere to?

It makes sense that I understand that it is wrong. Because God has made it perfectly clear, I can know that certain acts are morally wrong.

How did God make it "perfectly clear" if he ordered the Israelites to do just that?

But what if we view this from the atheistic viewpoint? If God doesn't exist then this would merely be your own personal opinion, no?

You're right, in my case, it is my opinion that it would be wrong for me (or anyone) to kill my son. But it is not just my personal opinion; it is also the opinion shared by the vast majority of humans in the world today. And that's why there's a state, national, and general global moral consensus that holds that it is wrong for a parent to kill their child. Without that particular moral rule in the global moral consensus, then according to the global moral consensus it would not be morally wrong for a parent to kill their child. This is blindingly obvious. But it would still be wrong under my personal moral standard, though.

If it is morally wrong for a parent to kill their own child, why is it morally wrong, and how do you--an atheist, know this?

It is morally wrong according to my personal moral standard, the moral standard of most people in the world, and according to the state, national, and general global moral consensus. I know this because there are state, national, and even some global laws against it, and further most people (everybody, actually) I know consider it personally morally wrong.

I sure as hell didn't come to my knowledge that killing your child is morally wrong from the Bible, which includes among other things the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice account and the law commanding the Israelites to do just that.

Biff the unclean

But what if we view this from the atheistic viewpoint? If God doesn't exist then this would merely be your own personal opinion, no?
NO
You know the answer is no because you have been told NO again and again. You know the answer is NO because you once were an Atheist (an Atheist who knows astonishingly little about Atheism)
It is not a personal opinion it is an agreed on set of behaviors of the society you live in.

If it is morally wrong for a parent to kill their own child, why is it morally wrong, and how do you--an atheist, know this?
Why would you need a god to know something like that?
Just like you I learned it from older members of my society as a child. There were no gods involved. Morals are behaviors that insure a cohesive group. All animals that live in packs, herds, schools, flocks have evolved these behaviors. There's even a branch of science devoted to it's study called Animal Behavior Morals are what Animal Behavior is called when you are talking about humans. Humans agreeing with other humans what is best for human society.
There is no need whatsoever for a god to dictate human morals. And it's a good thing too, considering the fact that there aren't any gods.

Mageth

And it's a good thing too, considering the fact that there aren't any gods.

Well, there are those gods that groups of people (religions) agree are gods (you know, those man-created deities?) And unfortunately, in many cases, use them to construct god-based moral systems that are used to justify all sorts of atrocities (including condemning all non-adherents to hell, in some cases). Which makes such religions, IMO (and I think in the opinion of a larger group of people; it's my opinion and the consensus opinion of a group to which I adhere), immoral and for the most part bad for humanity.

Biff the unclean

…it's my opinion and the consensus opinion of a group to which I adhere), immoral and for the most part bad for humanity.
So it would seem not to be possible to have an actual moral system based on a god that was in fact moral.
Gods being produced by individuals and small groups of men with the purpose of furthering their own agenda through subterfuge. These gods would reflect their creator's desires and not the general populace's welfare.
To be an actual moral system it would have to have come about through societal consensus and not from groups bent on deception and gain by pretending to be speaking for nonexistent gods.

Pain Paien

Perhaps not, but in order to successfully make your arguments, you first have to prove that an "objective moral source" even exists. Since you haven't done this, you have failed thus far.

You have already been proven wrong on the count of that arbitrary nature (multiple times, I might add), and again, only you see any problem with subjectivism or relativism, and not for any rational reasons.

You may not have claimed it, but you clearly implied it through your statements on morality. The difference between you speaking for god and for us speaking against him is that we have clear evidence to draw from, and you do not. The only source you have for your views on god is the bible, and you have absolutely no evidence that your interpretation should be favored above that of any other Christian (and there is without doubt a great deal of disharmony amongst Christianity). On the other hand, atheists can draw from clear historical and scientific fact for our reasoning: Christians have never agreed on their own morality (and have behaved extremely immorally, even by their own standards, as a group), the bible is scientifically inaccurate, and most of all, there is an absolute lack of evidence for any god at all, when the book supposedly written by him professes that god desires for us to know him.

This is blatantly dishonest on your part. You have already said that the if god commands it, it is moral. Therefore, if he commanded terrorism, it would be moral, by your own admission. You have absolutely no basis to believe he did not.

Yes, but this belief, much like your religious ones, is plainly irrational.

This has been answered countless times. I will do so again out of principle. It is because we know we would not want it to happen to us. It's called empathy, a concept apparently foreign to you. This has more practical foundation than your belief in a book of mythology, and is entirely more pragmatic.