Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Yes, and we have seen how under YOUR human moral standard, the Nazi's were (according to you) morally RIGHT to gas millions of Jews under their own system, and that (according to you) they were morally WRONG to gas millions of Jews under their own system.

Again with the strawman. It's not MY moral standard; it's the very essence of morality. My argument is that the Nazi's actions were obviously morally "right" according to the moral system they constructed for themselves to justify their actions, and the actions of the Nazis were morally wrong according to other moral systems, those used to oppose, overthrow, and judge them.

In addition, it is your argument on this thread that the Israelites were morally right in killing rebellious children because God told them to, while earlier in the thread you claimed it was morally wrong to kill rebellious children.

The fact that you repeatedly and blatently contradict yourself (without explanation) on what is/isn't moral is only part of your problem.

I have not contradicted myself on what is or isn't "moral". I've stated the problem exactly as I reiterated it above repeatedly on this thread, which is notcontradictory. You've repeatedly constructed strawmen, as above, in which you portray me as contradicting myself, and which I have torn down time and again.

You have no way to even BEGIN an attempt to form a coherent human morality because:

Again, I and others have done just that several times on this thread, countering your pile of strawmen and your ad nauseum arguments.

1. The consensus of the crowd doesn't make something good or right. This is just repeatedly asserted by you, and blindly accepted by some atheists, on faith alone.

Utter bullshit. By definition, the only thing that makes any action morally right or wrong is a moral system that defines that action as morally right or wrong. This is a truism. Note that this is true even if the moral system comes as you claim (objectively or subjectively) from your supposed God. This is so blatantly obvious that your arguments against it are making you look a bit silly.

I have given some examples showing where it leads.

I forget, which demolished examples were those?

And yes, I've had to repeatedly "assert" it to you, to answer to your repeated strawman arguments to the contrary and apparent inability to recognize the blindingly obvious.

And it's not accepted on "faith"; it's firmly embedded in the very definition of morality. You can't have morality if you don't recognize this fact.

2. Humans have never been in agreement on what is "good" for society, or for the world.

Umm, so? Consensus has been reached on what's "good" many times in the past, in many cultures. And it's not exactly like your religion has ever agreed on what's good, is it? Heck, on this thread alone you've claimed that killing a rebellious child can be morally either right or wrong.

3. Humans (according to you) do not agree on what is/isn't morally right.

That is blindingly obvious as well. All you have to do is take a survey of a reasonable number of people to demonstrate that humans don't agree on what's morally right. That's why consensus is important for society's morals, particularly for those actions that may adversely effect other people (individual actions that don't adversely effect other people are preferably left to the moral system of the individual).

Further, your points 2 and 3 are, well, contradictory. If, as you apparently claim, all humans agree on what's morally right, why have humans never been in agreement on what is good for society and the world?

4. Might doesn't equal right.

Absolutely; I've never said otherwise. You, however, have implied that in your god claims (see below).

The fact that a particular government has the ability to enforce its laws doesn't mean its laws are morally right. (Nazi Germany, Cambodia, under Pol Pot)

Absolutely. I've never said otherwise. If you're claiming I did, then you're constructing another strawman.

And I could turn that around and say "The fact that a particular god has the ability to enforce its laws doesn't mean its laws are morally right". Your argument about what God says to do is good, and what God says not to do is bad, hinges on the principle that "might makes right".

At this point, it appears that I've ground your "moral" philosophy into an exceedingly fine dust.

If you really think that, you must be snorting some exceedingly fine dust.

Your claim reminds me of that Iraqi information officer, claiming victory while the tanks were rolling into Baghdad...

Honestly, Keith, constructing strawmen and repeating your totally unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum does not an argument make. What has happened here is that:

1. You made some assertions.
2. Those assertions were countered, and evidence to support them was requested.
3. You failed to provide support for your arguments, instead choosing to attack your opponent's position by constructing strawmen, and to repeat your unsubstantiated assertions ad nauseum.
4. Your arguments were systematically refuted and shown to be often contradictory using your own posts, arguments, and scriptures.
5. You resort again to strawman and ad nauseum arguments, often repeating the same strawmen arguments that had been previously, and repeatedly, burned to ashes.
6. You claimed victory (more than once, I might add) when such a claim was, well, totally unjustified.

You've offered no substantial support for your claims of an objective morality, no evidence that the God you base it on exists, no evidence that an objective morality exists, no evidence that anything is "written on our hearts", no evidence that the Bible is a reliable source for morals, no support for your oft-asserted claim of a need for an objective moral standard, and either cannot or will not provide us with this supposedly "objective" morality.

In the meantime, I and others have described to you the consentual mechanism on which subjective moral systems are based, have provided examples of what such moral systems can be based on (practical and empathy/compassion) and given a viable description of a developing global moral system which I (and the many others who ascribe to it) consider "good" for humanity, and explained why we think it's good for humanity to ascribe to such a moral system. Further, as I've said several times, the consentual moral mechanism is obviously and demonstrably how things work, and how things have worked, since the dawn of civilization.

You've not even put a dent in those arguments.

JGL53

Yeah, Keith, what Mageth said. You obviously got nothing and apparently aren't gonna be coming up with anything new. Your arguments, if one could rightly call your posts that, are as boring as dirt, with about the same amount of cognitive content.

Time to hang it up and opt for fideism. It's clean and pure, plus you won't have to defend it to anyone. All your free time can be used to worship your god. Think about it.

Pain Paien

As if he were even paying any attention at all any more. If he had any credibility left for you when he posted that, you haven't been reading his posts close enough.

winstonjen

LOL! You're right, but honesty was never a defining characteristic of fundies now, was it?

Keith

I'll give you just a few examples that show that although all humans know and understand what specific acts are morally wrong for a person to commit, they still, in numerous cases, fail to agree on what is good for society and the world.

1. The gun control issue (does private ownership of guns contribute to violent crime?)

2. Welfare (if, how, and to what degree should government provide assistance to poor families, and for how long?)

3. The environment (how should we protect it)

Keith

I just want to point out a conflict concerning what "atheists say they don't believe, and what their actions demonstrate:

I (Keith) lack belief in leprechauns and if I ever meet someone who believes in (and loves to discuss) leprechauns, I would go well out of my way to AVOID that person so I wouldn't have to discuss leprechauns.

This thread has gone on for... 19 pages? This thread features a Christian "fundie" who totally lacks credibility? Are you out of your mind, or just too stupid to think of something better to do with your time?

P.S. Please understand...I'm not trying to insult you. I'm only using insulting words here to highlight the obvious conflict between what "atheists" say they lack belief in, and how much they CARE about the whole God topic. They are obsessed by God--yet they want everyone to think that they lack belief in God.

yguy

You think they're lying? I don't.

Maybe they shouldn't believe in God just yet. Such a belief is not always a step up.

Alonzo Fyfe

The reason for concern over those who believe in God and those who believe in leprechauns is that the former provide a continuing threat to the safety and well being of society and to individuals within, and the latter are too scarce to be much of a danger.

To the best of my knowledge, leprechauners have not tied people with traits that leprechauns disapprove of and left them there to die. Leprechauners are not seeking to put pressure on all students to take part in rituals that are a part of the leprechaun myth. Leprechauners are not requiring the posting of signs that say "In Leprechauns We Trust" and taking similar acts that all have as their effect to communicate the same statement -- that those who do not believe in Leprechauns are an inferior class of being and should be treated as such. I have not been assaulted, harrassed, vandalized, and bloodied by leprechauners. We are not presently living in a state whose government says that all people are to be taxed, but that the tax monies may permissibly be handed out only to those who profess a belief in leprechauns. We do not live in a country whose president has announced that those who do not believe in leprechauns are not fit to be hired into the judicial branch of government. I do not know of any kid who has had to suffer the embarrassment and self doubt of a classmate saying, "My parents say that you're an evil person who is going to go to hell because you do not believe in leprechauns, and I can't play with you any more and you can't come over to my house because you do not accept that there are leprechauns." We do not live in a society where leprechauners are working to prohibit medical advances that would allow us to live longer, healthier lives on the grounds that the leprechauns might be offenced. Nor do we have an attorney general who insists that people suffer long, lingering, painful deaths rather than die with dignity because the leprechauns have said that they get more pleasure out of watching humans suffer the longer, more torturous death. Nor do we live in a country whose president makes decisions to go to war based on the imagined council of leprechauns, and who evaluates intelligence data on the basis of whether these imaginary leprechauns tell him it is reliable or not. We don't live in a world in which leprechauners are continually blocking programs that could mean the difference between the survival of the species -- such as institute protections from asteroid impacts -- on the basis that 'the leprechauns would never allow something like that happen to us.' We don't live in a world where leprechauners are routinely detonating large quantities of explosives among innocent civilians, and in some cases stare at each other across international borders with their fingers on nuclear weapons ready to push the button the instant their personal leprechauns tell them that it is a good idea.

For these reasons, and several others, I do not find leprechauners nearly as disconcerting.

If there were such a risk, you can rest assured that I would be as concerned with leprechauners as I am with theists.

Keith

Hi Alonzo, I enjoyed reading your post. Tell me...would it be "wrong" for Christians (or for theists) to provide a continuing threat to the safety and well being of individuals--and to society? If so, why?

Nowhere357

The answer is contained in the question.