Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 07-14-2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal

"Do you believe all people caught practising homosexuality should be put to death?

Do you believe all children who swear at their parents should be put to death?

If you say "No" to either of these (or anything else in Leviticus), how do you justify yourself going against god's will in this instance, and not others?"

No, and no. And I'm not going against God's will in this instance.

Keith · 07-14-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"So much for God's supposed "objective moral standard" based on the Bible, or on his nature, then. God's moral rules become arbitrary and subjective."

Are God's moral laws 'arbitrary and subjective' because YOU say they are?

Keith · 07-14-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"It's to my advantage to adapt the moral standards that allow me to get along in my society. I don't want to be killed, so I consider murder wrong and don't kill. I don't want my daughter or wife to be raped, so I consider rape wrong and don't rape. I don't want other people driving 70 mph in front of my house when my son's playing in the front yard, so I obey the speed limits."

Yes, but you could consider it "to your advantage" to cheat on your wife, accept illegal campaign contributions (if you were a politician), operate illegal sweat-shops, and lots of other things any of which might allow you to get along (or ahead) in society. The fact that you want to be "fair" and try to follow the golden rule is very noble, but it doesn't justify basing one's morality on things that he/she views to be to his/her survival advantage, or any other kind of advantage. Some acts are morally wrong regardless how some individuals may feel about them.

Abel Stable · 07-14-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Some acts are morally wrong regardless how some individuals may feel about them.

Okay- I'd like to think that slavery, rape, & genocide are among those acts considered universally wrong......but god & the Bible don�t condemn them, and often promote them. Meanwhile, the sharing of honest, true love between members of the same sex is downright evil. Why? And why the "special rules" for certain groups of people (ie: Israelites)? I thought we were all equal in god's eyes, and all evenly bound to live by his rules. I thought god wanted a personal relationship with each of us�and for us all to read his Word. There are so many different denominations (all distinctly different) of Judeo-Christianity alone�and they cannot all be correct. If god�s message is so important, why did he make it so easy to be misinterpreted?

God�s moral code in the Bible is a schizophrenic, patchwork mess. I can�t rely on it as a whole, and don�t know how people do.

Mageth · 07-14-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Are God's moral laws 'arbitrary and subjective' because YOU say they are?

No; it's because you say they are. I'm basing that on what you've said here in this thread. You claim that killing homosexuals and rebellious children is wrong (supposedly based on your idea of "god's objective moral standard") out of one side of your mouth, yet try to claim that God was justified in telling the Israelites to do just that out of the other side of your mouth. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim two diametrically opposed examples of god's supposed moral laws are based on an "objective" standard.

Mageth · 07-15-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Keith
Yes, but you could consider it "to your advantage" to cheat on your wife, accept illegal campaign contributions (if you were a politician), operate illegal sweat-shops, and lots of other things any of which might allow you to get along (or ahead) in society.

Yes, I could, but I choose not to.

The fact that you want to be "fair" and try to follow the golden rule is very noble, but it doesn't justify basing one's morality on things that he/she views to be to his/her survival advantage, or any other kind of advantage.

Another strawman. I've never said that one should base your morality on things that you view to be to your survival advantage. You're completely misconstruing or misunderstanding what I've said. If you'll note a few posts back, I said:

I think slavery is morally wrong, obviously, because I myself would not wish to be a slave. Empathy and compassion are wonderful moral guides.

Some acts are morally wrong regardless how some individuals may feel about them.

Things are morally wrong only in the context of the moral system in which they are held wrong, and only there. Your examples are all examples of things that you happen to consider immoral under a moral system that is an amalgem of moral rules from various levels of culture.

I happen to agree that the three things you list are morally wrong - but I know enough to recognize that I consider them morally wrong because the moral system(s) I've adopted considers them morally wrong. The only one that really applies to me is cheating on my spouse - one reason I don't cheat on my spouse is because I think it's morally wrong. But the biggest reason I don't cheat on my wife because I love her and my son and don't want to hurt either one of them.

So I'm an example of an atheist who can control myself just because I feel it's the right thing for me to do, and because of love, compassion, and empathy. The fact that I recognize that it's also in my best interest not to, say, go around killing people doesn't change that, as that is something that I recognize, but it's not the reason I don't kill people. That kinda shoots down most of your argument, doesn't it?

Cheating on one's spouse, accepting illegal campaign contributions, and illegal sweat shops - one can easily think of societies where one or more of those things might not be considered morally wrong. Heck, in the U.S. not that long ago, virtually any kind of campaign contribution was generally not illegal and not considered immoral. There have been, and still are, societies where cheating on one's spouse was not considered immoral. Sweat shops were almost universally not considered immoral until sometimes in the 19th century, IIRC.

Such things are not objectively morally wrong. This should be obvious to you if you look at one of your examples more closely - campaign contributions. I've already noted that not that long ago, very few if any campaign contributions would have been considered immoral. Go back not that much farther and political campaigns and thus campaign contributions didn't even exist. So obviously at that time campaign contributions could not have been "objectively" morally wrong. The same holds true for sweat shops - the concept didn't exist before the industrial age.

The fact that society, no matter how global or local, considers something such as campaign contributions, sweat shops, and cheating on your spouse as morally wrong cannot and should not be used to extrapolate to the false conclusion that these things are somehow "inherently" and objectively morally wrong. They're morally wrong simply because we, collectively, have agreed that they are morally wrong.

Further, and this is a big one - I think that ideally, everyone should live by the standards of compassion, empathy, and a modified version of the "golden rule" - if you know what someone wants done to them, then do unto them as they would have done unto them. If you don't know what they want, do unto them as you would have them do unto you. And maybe a couple of other simple rules, such as minimize your impact on the environment as much as possible. Ideally, there should be no need for a moral system - objective, subjective, religious, or otherwise - outside of those basic rules. The fact that so many of us can't get along that way in society is why we've had to develop such elaborate layers of moral systems to govern our behavior in all sorts of situations.

Keith · 07-15-2003, 01:03 AM

Abel Stable: "Okay- I'd like to think that slavery, rape, & genocide are among those acts considered universally wrong......but god & the Bible don�t condemn them, and often promote them."

Keith: "The fallacy here is that if God orders the Israelites to wipe out every person of a certain tribe, then God must generally promote genocide. If God didn't stop the practice of slavery during the OT times, God must think slavery is good, etc. Is this a necessary inference from the OT?"

Abel Stable: "I thought we were all equal in god's eyes, and all evenly bound to live by his rules. I thought god wanted a personal relationship with each of us�and for us all to read his Word. There are so many different denominations (all distinctly different) of Judeo-Christianity alone�and they cannot all be correct. If god�s message is so important, why did he make it so easy to be misinterpreted?"

Keith: "Equal in God's eyes, yes, but why does this necessarily mean that God has to treat each person or group exactly the same way?

God didn't make his word so easy to misinterpret. Man did. The fall of man (in the garden) is the reason for mankind's moral and spiritual blindness. After the fall we became willfully blind sinners who can't be objective with our reasoning. Only regeneration can restore our ability to reason so that we can interpret facts objectively.

winstonjen · 07-15-2003, 01:46 AM

Keith, have you heard of guilt by omission? Your deity, if he existed, would be guilty for everything that occurs, as he is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.

Abel Stable · 07-15-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
"The fallacy here is that if God orders the Israelites to wipe out every person of a certain tribe, then God must generally promote genocide. If God didn't stop the practice of slavery during the OT times, God must think slavery is good, etc. Is this a necessary inference from the OT?"

It is the natural inference from the OT. I�d think that god would speak against those acts he considered morally wrong & sinful. Is god promoting & encouraging acts he finds wrong? Don't you think this sends mixed signals to his people?

Quote:

"Equal in God's eyes, yes, but why does this necessarily mean that God has to treat each person or group exactly the same way?

That is the definition of equality. Treating groups differently shows favoritism to some over others...and may make some people feel excluded & alienated from god's plan.

Quote:

God didn't make his word so easy to misinterpret. Man did.

Are you saying that the Bible is not divinely inspired? Or that god chose to write it in a way that mankind, in its morally blind state, will have difficulty understanding?

Quote:

The fall of man (in the garden) is the reason for mankind's moral and spiritual blindness.

I thought the fall was when man learned the difference between good and evil. It would be the beginning of morality, not the end.

Mageth · 07-15-2003, 07:38 AM

Keith: "The fallacy here is that if God orders the Israelites to wipe out every person of a certain tribe, then God must generally promote genocide. If God didn't stop the practice of slavery during the OT times, God must think slavery is good, etc. Is this a necessary inference from the OT?"

If the moral system recorded in the "Law" of the OT was handed down as alleged by the alleged YHWH, then it is clear that YHWH does not consider genocide, slavery, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of rebellious children, etc. morally wrong.

That is a necessary inference from the OT.

He does consider eating shellfish and pork, boiling a kid in its mother's milk, and the wearing of cloth made of more than one raw material, wrong. What a wonderful, objective basis for morals the Bible is!

God didn't make his word so easy to misinterpret. Man did. The fall of man (in the garden) is the reason for mankind's moral and spiritual blindness. After the fall we became willfully blind sinners who can't be objective with our reasoning.

There was no garden, and there was no fall. You're basing this assertion on an obvious myth. Gen. 1-3 is a myth, was originally intended as a myth, was obviously at least partly dervived from earlier myths, and should not be interpreted as history.

Only regeneration can restore our ability to reason so that we can interpret facts objectively.

Which you have failed miserably to do, or demonstrate, in this thread. Have you not been "regenerated"?

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

07-15-2003, 12:40 AM	#196
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith Yes, but you could consider it "to your advantage" to cheat on your wife, accept illegal campaign contributions (if you were a politician), operate illegal sweat-shops, and lots of other things any of which might allow you to get along (or ahead) in society. Yes, I could, but I choose not to. The fact that you want to be "fair" and try to follow the golden rule is very noble, but it doesn't justify basing one's morality on things that he/she views to be to his/her survival advantage, or any other kind of advantage. Another strawman. I've never said that one should base your morality on things that you view to be to your survival advantage. You're completely misconstruing or misunderstanding what I've said. If you'll note a few posts back, I said: I think slavery is morally wrong, obviously, because I myself would not wish to be a slave. Empathy and compassion are wonderful moral guides. Some acts are morally wrong regardless how some individuals may feel about them. Things are morally wrong only in the context of the moral system in which they are held wrong, and only there. Your examples are all examples of things that you happen to consider immoral under a moral system that is an amalgem of moral rules from various levels of culture. I happen to agree that the three things you list are morally wrong - but I know enough to recognize that I consider them morally wrong because the moral system(s) I've adopted considers them morally wrong. The only one that really applies to me is cheating on my spouse - one reason I don't cheat on my spouse is because I think it's morally wrong. But the biggest reason I don't cheat on my wife because I love her and my son and don't want to hurt either one of them. So I'm an example of an atheist who can control myself just because I feel it's the right thing for me to do, and because of love, compassion, and empathy. The fact that I recognize that it's also in my best interest not to, say, go around killing people doesn't change that, as that is something that I recognize, but it's not the reason I don't kill people. That kinda shoots down most of your argument, doesn't it? Cheating on one's spouse, accepting illegal campaign contributions, and illegal sweat shops - one can easily think of societies where one or more of those things might not be considered morally wrong. Heck, in the U.S. not that long ago, virtually any kind of campaign contribution was generally not illegal and not considered immoral. There have been, and still are, societies where cheating on one's spouse was not considered immoral. Sweat shops were almost universally not considered immoral until sometimes in the 19th century, IIRC. Such things are not objectively morally wrong. This should be obvious to you if you look at one of your examples more closely - campaign contributions. I've already noted that not that long ago, very few if any campaign contributions would have been considered immoral. Go back not that much farther and political campaigns and thus campaign contributions didn't even exist. So obviously at that time campaign contributions could not have been "objectively" morally wrong. The same holds true for sweat shops - the concept didn't exist before the industrial age. The fact that society, no matter how global or local, considers something such as campaign contributions, sweat shops, and cheating on your spouse as morally wrong cannot and should not be used to extrapolate to the false conclusion that these things are somehow "inherently" and objectively morally wrong. They're morally wrong simply because we, collectively, have agreed that they are morally wrong. Further, and this is a big one - I think that ideally, everyone should live by the standards of compassion, empathy, and a modified version of the "golden rule" - if you know what someone wants done to them, then do unto them as they would have done unto them. If you don't know what they want, do unto them as you would have them do unto you. And maybe a couple of other simple rules, such as minimize your impact on the environment as much as possible. Ideally, there should be no need for a moral system - objective, subjective, religious, or otherwise - outside of those basic rules. The fact that so many of us can't get along that way in society is why we've had to develop such elaborate layers of moral systems to govern our behavior in all sorts of situations.

07-15-2003, 01:03 AM	#197
Keith Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S. England, and S. California Posts: 616	Abel Stable: "Okay- I'd like to think that slavery, rape, & genocide are among those acts considered universally wrong......but god & the Bible don�t condemn them, and often promote them." Keith: "The fallacy here is that if God orders the Israelites to wipe out every person of a certain tribe, then God must generally promote genocide. If God didn't stop the practice of slavery during the OT times, God must think slavery is good, etc. Is this a necessary inference from the OT?" Abel Stable: "I thought we were all equal in god's eyes, and all evenly bound to live by his rules. I thought god wanted a personal relationship with each of us�and for us all to read his Word. There are so many different denominations (all distinctly different) of Judeo-Christianity alone�and they cannot all be correct. If god�s message is so important, why did he make it so easy to be misinterpreted?" Keith: "Equal in God's eyes, yes, but why does this necessarily mean that God has to treat each person or group exactly the same way? God didn't make his word so easy to misinterpret. Man did. The fall of man (in the garden) is the reason for mankind's moral and spiritual blindness. After the fall we became willfully blind sinners who can't be objective with our reasoning. Only regeneration can restore our ability to reason so that we can interpret facts objectively.

07-15-2003, 01:46 AM	#198
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Keith, have you heard of guilt by omission? Your deity, if he existed, would be guilty for everything that occurs, as he is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.

07-15-2003, 07:38 AM	#200
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Keith: "The fallacy here is that if God orders the Israelites to wipe out every person of a certain tribe, then God must generally promote genocide. If God didn't stop the practice of slavery during the OT times, God must think slavery is good, etc. Is this a necessary inference from the OT?" If the moral system recorded in the "Law" of the OT was handed down as alleged by the alleged YHWH, then it is clear that YHWH does not consider genocide, slavery, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of rebellious children, etc. morally wrong. That is a necessary inference from the OT. He does consider eating shellfish and pork, boiling a kid in its mother's milk, and the wearing of cloth made of more than one raw material, wrong. What a wonderful, objective basis for morals the Bible is! God didn't make his word so easy to misinterpret. Man did. The fall of man (in the garden) is the reason for mankind's moral and spiritual blindness. After the fall we became willfully blind sinners who can't be objective with our reasoning. There was no garden, and there was no fall. You're basing this assertion on an obvious myth. Gen. 1-3 is a myth, was originally intended as a myth, was obviously at least partly dervived from earlier myths, and should not be interpreted as history. Only regeneration can restore our ability to reason so that we can interpret facts objectively. Which you have failed miserably to do, or demonstrate, in this thread. Have you not been "regenerated"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.