Ensign Steve

Besides the fact that I don't agree that we need God for an objective moral standard, I just really wanted to point something out.

Even if we did NEED god, that does not make him exist.

Keith

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that among various philosophical viewpoints, Carrie has specifically called Christianity "stupid". This may or may not be accurate, but in any case, don't we need to compare Christianity to other possible beliefs before deciding if it is stupid? Atheism is another possible viewpoint. It has the embarrassing problem of being unable to point to an objective moral foundation. Atheists can believe that murder, or child molesting is morally wrong but it would be silly for them to argue their case to anyone. If murder and child molesting are morally wrong, why are they wrong, and how do they know it?

Keith

Just because I need to breathe oxygen to live, and I'm alive, doesn't mean oxygen exists.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
First the need: In order to have a meaningful discussion with other people about the moral rightness/wrongness of an act (such as murder), there must be an objective standard for determining what is/isn't right/wrong.

Why must there be an objective standard for determining what is/isn't right/wrong? Can't a group of people (a society) come to a consensus on what is right and wrong in their group? Don't families, clubs, organizations, religions, ethnic groups, and even nations do this all the time? If a group/society produces and codifies such a moral standard, is that or is it not an objective moral standard of sorts, at least in the confines of that group/society?

If God, by his very nature isn't the moral standard that all of us are subject to, then what is?

"All of us", I would say. Societies develop sets of moral standards that members of the societies are subject to. There is a subset of these moral standards which, in today's global society, we tend to hold all members of the global society to (though some obviously don't toe the line).

And, I might ask why all of us must be subject to one universal moral standard? My answer would be so that we can all get along together in a society. Thus, it's society's responsibility to come to a consensus on what's right and wrong in that society. (Note that modern societies typically, but not always, think many of the "moral standards" imposed on the societies for which the bible was written are, to say the least, no longer appropriate. I'm for sure not killing my son if he curses me, and I enjoy my bacon).

Aren't we left with our own subjective beliefs as to what is morally right/wrong?

No, we're left with society's set(s) of moral standards. One such standard that is emerging, at least in some societies, is that an individual sets his or her own moral standards for actions that don't harm others (or society in general). E.g., sexual preference. Another is freedom of/from religion - a rare bird before the establishment of the U.S. Constitution (and one you definitely won't find in the Bible).

IOW, without God, it is just as silly to argue about whether child molesting is wrong as it is to argue whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.

Why? That's one of the "global" moral standards, isn't it? (BTW, where in the bible does it say "child molestation is wrong"?)

The fact that so many people choose to interpret the bible wrongly and self-servingly or believe it is no longer relevant doesn't mean that God is not the objective standard for morality.

So, does this mean that you think that you interpret the bible "rightly and unselfishly"? Isn't that your subjective opinion of what the bible means? Doesn't "interpret" imply subjectivity? Don't others interpret parts of it differently than you? What makes your subjective interpretation more "objective" than the next guy's?

What it boils down to is your subjective interpretation of God (and his word) are your subjective standard for morality.

Further, unless you can produce this supposed objective moral standard of God's, which you haven't, your argument is suffering from a sore lack of backing.

Mageth

Atheism is another possible viewpoint. It has the embarrassing problem of being unable to point to an objective moral foundation.

Again, why should atheism need to point to an "objective moral foundation"? You say that, but you haven't established that.

As pointed out, all atheism entails is lack of belief in god(s). An atheist's morals are derived through other avenues; atheism in and of itself does not, and need not, provide a moral foundation. As an atheist, I'm even free to adapt biblical (or Buddhist, or...) morals for my own use. In any case, I, and most other atheists, generally ascribe to the accepted morals of the society (local or global) in which we live ("child molesting and murder are wrong"), while if we so choose eschewing some of the restrictive, and unnecessary, morals imposed on society by religion(s) (e.g., homosexuality is an abomination)

Atheists can believe that murder, or child molesting is morally wrong but it would be silly for them to argue their case to anyone.

Why? Both cause harm to others (individually) and to society in general. As an atheist, I want to get along in society as best I can, without myself being murdered or molested, and without my children being murdered and molested. It's definitely in my best interest, and in the interest of society and general, to consider child molestation and murder wrong.

If murder and child molesting are morally wrong, why are they wrong, and how do they know it?

I just told you.

Now, is killing your child who curses you morally wrong, and if so, how do you know it?

brighid

It's not morally unjustifiable to dislike icecream, or gay sex. I would say that at the root of most peoples dislike for gay sex is a deeply ingrained prejudice and ignorance and it is this foundation that is morally wrong. In accordance with the OP, which I was arguing that you responded to it is wrong to dislike (but more specifically hate) people based on prejudicial notions of group association. You have argued that it is not. The distinction I have made is the "all" category and that individuals deserve to be judged separate from group generalizations.

I think that those people who shudder and gag at gay sex have every right to their tastes, but I am not sure that is at all relevant to friendship. I am not entirely kosher with some of the things my gay friends do (and have at times shared with me) but that doesn't prevent my ability to view them as more then sexual beings. That is my point - the totality of the individual character (and hence worth and potential friendship) cannot be accurately assessed by generalizations, or even minor likes and dislikes.

It makes my vegetarian friends gag to see me eat meat, that doesn't preclude our ability to be friends. If your dislike for individual is not founded upon their actual expressed thoughts, beliefs and actions, but what you think he/she thinks, believes and does based on generalizations and prejudice I would continue to argue you are morally wrong for doing so.

To me it is no different then feeling that "all" black people are lazy, and like rap music because they are black and this denotes some sort of value, or lack there of because a person has met lazy people who like rap music, but also happen to be black.

Yes, but ones gayness, blackness or Christianity can only be extrapolated to gayness, blackness and a belief in Christ. Nothing more can be accurately determined about the totality of their character by these characteristics. The only thing that ALL Christians have in common is a belief in Christ. They all aren't oppressors, desiring gays to be relinquished to the lowest rung of society, atheist haters, etc. simply because all Christians maintain a belief in Christ.

It was my impression that you were arguing that Carrie was justified for not being friends with ALL Christians because they were Christian, and thereby justifying her anger and hatred to all Christians when you stated:

Specifically with regard to what Carrie said

and Brighid

Ensign Steve

Just because I need $200 to pay my phone bill, doesn't mean that I have $200. Just because the starving children in Africa need food, doesn't mean they have it. A need for something is not proof of its existence.

Ensign Steve

It still doesn't follow.

Even if you could prove beyond a doubt that "atheism is stupid," it does not automatically follow that "christianity is not stupid."

And before you try to say again "That's not what I'm saying" this is what you said:

dangin

C'mon, that isn't even a sidestep. You just ignored around 12 arguments against your position. DC eloquently stated multiple problems you have, and I pointed out that for god to be an objective authority, one must prove his existence.

But back to my point.

1. We are social.
2. We are social because we are stronger and more capable as a group than we are as individuals.
3. It is in our interest as individuals to maintain full access to the society from which we draw benefit.
4. Anti social behavior reduces one's access to their own society.
5. This can be deduced to have been the case within our social order since we collectively attained the status of "homo" if not even before that.
6. This "system" existed long before any of our collective religions, and can be deduced to be the source of important moral codes within religion.
7. This also explains when serious offenses like rape, assault, murder, home invasion are secular as well as moral crimes, but no one cares about porn, masturbation, and "moral crimes" like that, because one set affects society and always has, and the other is superstition invented by religious men uncomfortable with their own bodies.

Ensign Steve

But if there was some other vegetarian who refused to be friends with people who eat meat, above all other criteria, would you consider them morally wrong for doing so?

This person isn't saying, "everybody who eats meat is such-and-such." All they are saying is I do not want to spend my time being around people who eat meat. Is that immoral? If so, why? I'm seriously interested to know upon what moral model you are basing this immorality. If not, how is it that criterion different from another criterion, like having a same-sex partner or believing in Christ?