Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

So the only, or even the primary legitimate role of sex is to procreate? I reject that completely.

Based on what objective criteria. Not that I even said what you rejected.

Homosexuality itself doesn't threaten life. It does run the risk of spreading diseases that do, but the problem isn't the activity (if responsibly done), but with the virus.

This is the same twisted logic that led to the Volstead act. It eliminated legal alcohol, only to produce moonshine, and crime gangs. That's because the problem wasn't the substance but the human heart.

1. Alcohol is amoral, the alcoholic is immoral.
2. Drugs are amoral, the drug addict is immoral.
Even with a war on drugs, drug addicts have only increased.
3. Bullets are amoral, murderers are immoral.
4. A fetus isn't immoral, it's promiscuity that is immoral.
5. Money is amoral, the love of money is immoral.
6. Sex as God intended is moral, sex as our lust intends is immoral and usually has much higher risks.

You leftists get everything backwards.

How, precisely, does lesbianism cost money or lives?

I already gave you plenty of reasons which you apparently ignored, why supply more?

The problem is that sex is a positive thing. Yes, even outside of marriage. In fact, it is an *essential* prior to marriage to guaranteed compatibility inside the marriage. If you want to allow gay marriage (which reduces the promiscuity you seem to be concerned about), I can support that.

What the? This is another leftist tactic called virtue signaling. You describe something that leads to more damages and costs than just about anything I can think of, as if it is not merely a virtue but a necessity. Allowing gay marriage does little to prevent the promiscuity, and it seems that not many gays ever actually wanted to get married anyway. Where it was made legal the demand was a trickle instead of a flood.

You are running on stereotypes and not on reality. Yes, gays can be less happy simply because this society rejects them (as you do). But I know gays who are in happy, healthy, long term relationships. And they seem to be so at about the same rate as straights. Except for a tiny minority.

Their general happiness was not the point. Your too smart to be misunderstanding my emphatic statements this often. I said that Gays are highly disposed to not be satisfied with simply being with one sexuality. Homosexuals seem to be on average bisexual with only the number of times they switch differing between each other.

So far I brought up 2 and you brought up 1 behavior that violate your standard of human well being to an extent as large as any 3 concepts that I could imagine. You did not stick by your own standard, you attempted to rationalize two of them and ignored the third all together. If your not going to take your paper tiger seriously why should I?

Yes, education, promotion of avoidance techniques, etc. Sex isn't the central issue here.

What? Since you don't seem to track what I say let's see what the CDC has to say:

Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

They certainly seemed to link a specific sexual behavior that results in aids data worse than even what I originally stated.

I don't see promiscuity in itself to be a moral issue. A psychological one, perhaps, but not a moral one. Sexual violence isn't the result of gay sex. it may be the result of too much testosterone, but not of gay sex. Adultery is mainly immoral when it goes against the promises made to be monogamous (if such are made). Physical damage from gay sex is usually minimal.



I am pro-choice, yes.


Homosexuality, in and of itself, is just as moral as heterosexuality.




Yes, usually when I forget a darn /.

At this point I can't take your moral arguments seriously anymore. Do you want to switch gears to a historical argument instead?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I notice that you seem to demand a cure instead of condemn the cause

I notice you condemn the cause rather than demand a cure (for AIDS).

The difference lies in the difference between the moral systems of secular humanists and Christians.

Incidentally, we want more than a cure. We also want an effective (preventive) vaccine, and effective sex education.

 

[1robin]

OK, let's go with this.

First, since murder is unjustified killing (we don't consider killing in self-defense or in war as murder), I am in support of #1 (although ti is somewhat tautological), except that I don't consider abortion to be murder.

So killing without justification are all murders unless it's the murder of the most innocent among us. The most pathetic justification possible is convenience. Prohibiting murder is not a tautology.

First you need to explain:

1. Exactly what age (in the womb) is the cut off between destroying cells, and murdering a human being.
2. Why one second previous that mark it was the equivalent of removing a skin tag.
3. Why one second after it was a capitol crime.
4. How you know where the line is.
5. Why the line is there instead of somewhere else.
6. Why what you consider matters.

I hate arguments about homosexuality and abortion because their defenders use horrific rationalizations to dress their emotional preferences up in. It's a tactic that so disgusts me I decided to never comment in an abortion thread again. So I am suspending our discussion about homosexuality, but will keep open the abortion argument for a few posts since you had ignored it until now.

Second, how are you going to enforce #2? What happens to the teenagers that have sex? What happens to those who are planning to get married, but have not, and yet have sex? What punishment do you use against someone who has sex outside of marriage? Social ostracism? A Scarlet A? Jail time? Sterilization? Death? How tyrannical are you going to be in the enforcement of this? How, exactly, do you discourage promiscuity? What happens to the children of those who have sex outside of marriage?

You mixing up concepts again, like you did with ontology and epistemology. I do not have to have the slightest idea how to fix my car to know exactly what is wrong with it.

I am a Christian and what is moral and immoral fits perfectly within that prevue. I am not a congressman so passing laws does not fall into my prevue. I have not thought out how to stop promiscuity but since we basically do nothing (outside of the church), any clumsy effort I might make to stop it ought to at least lower it.

What do you say to a couple who wants to have sex but doesn't want to have children? Do you see this as an immoral stance? What is they already have multiple children?

Get married. Your getting my secular damage argument, and my theological position confused here.

Is divorce going to be allowed? How about multiple divorces? Under what circumstances? If both partners agree to separate, are you going to force them back together? What if one is abusive?

I didn't mention divorce and haven't been thinking about it. For now I would simply make it harder to get that a cheeseburger to begin with.

For #3, since promiscuity is one of your major concerns, as well as spreading disease, shouldn't we allow gay marriage to discourage both? Or is it only good in a heterosexual marriage?

I already responded to this and for now the homosexual debate floor is closed. It is simply a fact that the less homosexual sex that occurs the less damage (by a long shot) would occur. If we were actually serious about maximizing human health homosexual sex and abortion are two no brainers.

And, again, what punishment will you propose for those who have gay sex? Ostracism? Jail time? Death? What is the gay couple has been in a monogamous relationship for years and is disease free? Does that negate your concerns?

Again I do not have to know how to fix my house to know that the hole in the roof is causing water damage to the interior.

We prohibit tens of thousands of things, do you think we did so only because, the enforcement was easy and obvious?

 

[1robin]

But higher levels of enforcement diminishes psychological human health because of the lack of freedom and self-determination.An oppressive government is NOT conducive to well-being! Or do you disagree?

Well your going to continuously have situations where you must sacrifice one to get the other. IOW I would not like anyone to raise my taxes (it would make me unhappy) but to get everyone healthier would require we raise taxes on everyone. This kind of internal contradiction and unknowability explains why no nation on earth uses your standard to ground legality.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is your preference, which is your opinion, which has no more value that the preferences of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Gandhi, Muhammad, or Billy Graham. It is just as amoral as what you prefer on your pizza.

Not true. because they focus on human well-being, they are objective for humans. For example, I would expect that even an alien race with different morals would be able to recognize what promotes human well-being. So that *is* a moral standard.

So you believe that your a better judge of a book you deny and have no training in interpreting compared to 2000 years of scholarly theological exegesis. It would be as bad as my telling the Academy of science the universe is actually shrinking or my telling the PGA they should all play in sandals.

No, I am not saying your interpretation of your book is wrong. I am saying the book itself is wrong. I am saying that belief in a deity at all is wrong.

Yes they do, they make them independent of anyone's opinion (even God's). Even if they were God's opinions they would still by objective but it turns out we don't even have to deal with that slight complication.

No, it is your *arbitrary* choice to use God's 'nature' as your moral standard. It is no more objective than using human well-being as the standard. In fact, it is probably much *less* objective.

God's nature is independent of anyone's opinion, has always existed, and holds sovereignty over everything else, real, abstract, or otherwise. His nature is high the highest objectivity possible. If you could take a picture of it, that's what should be in the encyclopedia describing it. The morality of God's nature is more objective that the nature of an object at rest to remain at rest unless acted upon.

OK, why would you think that God's 'nature' is 'the highest objectivity possible'??? That is just silliness. It is a matter you *your* opinion or of the opinion of those you use to interpret a book written *by humans* and is thereby much *less* objective than using human well-being as the standard.

If you were to base morality on human nature then tribal warfare would be it's highest virtue.

Does tribal warfare promote human well-being? No. So you are wrong.

So quoting the book in question on the subject in question is to be dismissed?

The book is irrelevant to truth.

No, it shows that the only single human to ever be perfectly moral (and who is connected with actual morality more than anyone or anything else) and your preferences contradict. I am going with the guy who defeated death, not the person who is not consistent with their own stated ethical preference.

You can believe any myth you want. That doesn't make it true or objective.

I know which party I am placing my money on winning this pathetic rebellion. This has become silly and futile. I am going to start responding in other ways.

Since I don't subscribe to your mythology, I have no fear of your deity.

(stuff deleted about your mythology).

 

[Polymath257]

So killing without justification are all murders unless it's the murder of the most innocent among us. The most pathetic justification possible is convenience. Prohibiting murder is not a tautology.

If murder is 'unjustified killing', then the fact that it is unjustified implies that it is prohibited, yes?

First you need to explain:

1. Exactly what age (in the womb) is the cut off between destroying cells, and murdering a human being.
2. Why one second previous that mark it was the equivalent of removing a skin tag.
3. Why one second after it was a capitol crime.
4. How you know where the line is.
5. Why the line is there instead of somewhere else.
6. Why what you consider matters.

If you attached yourself to my body, linking our blood systems in a way that you would die if we were separated, I would still have the right to separate you. And this is even though you are a thinking, feeling, moral person. And until the brain develops enough to even have a possibility of consciousness, there is no moral requirement. Now, that *is* a vague line, so we can push back to, say, 24 weeks of pregnancy for that sake. But even after that, the health of the person within whose body this is happening is paramount.

I hate arguments about homosexuality and abortion because their defenders use horrific rationalizations to dress their emotional preferences up in. It's a tactic that so disgusts me I decided to never comment in an abortion thread again. So I am suspending our discussion about homosexuality, but will keep open the abortion argument for a few posts since you had ignored it until now.

Yeah, I am a bit disgusted right now also. Anything to condemnt gays or people who decide not to have children.

You mixing up concepts again, like you did with ontology and epistemology. I do not have to have the slightest idea how to fix my car to know exactly what is wrong with it.

Not at all. Whether it promotes overall human well-being depends greatly on implementation, especially in these cases. I truthfully don't think it is *possible* to implement them in a way that is moral.

I am a Christian and what is moral and immoral fits perfectly within that prevue. I am not a congressman so passing laws does not fall into my prevue. I have not thought out how to stop promiscuity but since we basically do nothing (outside of the church), any clumsy effort I might make to stop it ought to at least lower it.

And I am a humanist that think such laws are very immoral. They inevitably are autocratic.

Get married. Your getting my secular damage argument, and my theological position confused here.

I didn't mention divorce and haven't been thinking about it. For now I would simply make it harder to get that a cheeseburger to begin with.

Sorry, but if you restrict sex to marriage (an insane notion to begin with), then divorce *must* be allowed and accepted for those who find themselves incompatible for whatever reason. Much better just to do away with the institution entirely. The only reason I am married is for health insurance. Yes, my wife and I love each other and have no intention of ever separating, but involving the government was required only because of our insane health insurance methods.

I already responded to this and for now the homosexual debate floor is closed. It is simply a fact that the less homosexual sex that occurs the less damage (by a long shot) would occur. If we were actually serious about maximizing human health homosexual sex and abortion are two no brainers.

How would 'more damage' be the case in a married, committed, monogamous gay couple?

Again I do not have to know how to fix my house to know that the hole in the roof is causing water damage to the interior.

But tearing down the house to fix a roof leak is unlikely to be the best plan.

We prohibit tens of thousands of things, do you think we did so only because, the enforcement was easy and obvious?

No, We prohibit many of them because they interfere with human well-being in some way that requires the government to step in. When the enforcement is worse than the issue, then there is a problem. Unfortunately, this is also often the case--we make a problem worse by making it illegal.

 

[Polymath257]

Well your going to continuously have situations where you must sacrifice one to get the other. IOW I would not like anyone to raise my taxes (it would make me unhappy) but to get everyone healthier would require we raise taxes on everyone. This kind of internal contradiction and unknowability explains why no nation on earth uses your standard to ground legality.

On the contrary, it is why we have representative governments to balance the competing interests. This is a *human* dilemma and has to be fixed by *human* figuring out how to maximize *human* well-being. One of the best ways we have found to do so is a representative system of government. If you have a better idea, let someone know. Theocracy is clearly NOT the answer.

 

[1robin]

I am pointing out the objectivity of science: both aliens and humans would ultiamtely find the same science to be true.

Again, I would agree that we would share certain scientific fundamentals, but again I don't see the relevance.

OK, you misunderstood my point. Humans don't decide morality because we are the most intelligent species. We decide human morality because we are humans. If another intelligent species existed, they could easily have their own morality.

There are intelligent species every where you look. Our well being comes at the cost of all other species well being, so we again circle the drain we begin with. Humans impose their own well being because we can. Might makes right.

With God humanity was given sovereignty over all other creatures on the planet. When I am eating a cheeseburger I am acting within the bounds of objective moral sovereignty, when you eat one your merely practicing speciesm or might makes right.

No, I did NOT say that. I said that humans are relevant to *humans* morality. And, for humans, that is an objective standard for morality.

I didn't say you said anything, I said that following your criteria to it's logical conclusion what I posted would be the result.

Whatever ethics humans or which ever species is dominate is the exact opposite of objective morality. I am going to have to assume that you just can't understand what objective morality means but I will give it one last chance:

1. Let's start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception. An object independent of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Applied to moral values; if they are objective, then they are discovered, not invented. Contrast this with subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to ask: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it is not enough to show some external ground for morality and then subjectively link that grounding with obligation. Obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference and also have some significant grounding in the object of perception.
apologetics.net | What is objective morality?

2. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.
Moral Argument

3. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad", "Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them. Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you.
What is objective morality?

4. “Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.”
Read more: “Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

5. And finally the one I use the most. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

Your opinion or preference that human well being is an objective moral value and duty violates every definition above and the hundreds I didn't post. I know of only on professional atheist who defends objective morality without God (Sam Harris) when he faced William Lane Craig we was forced to admit that his position was based completely on personal assumptions which lack any evidence in his world view.

I am going to cut the post in half, including reiterating that above definitions yet again will make this post too long. Continued below.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, I would agree that we would share certain scientific fundamentals, but again I don't see the relevance.

There are intelligent species every where you look. Our well being comes at the cost of all other species well being, so we again circle the drain we begin with. Humans impose their own well being because we can. Might makes right.

With God humanity was given sovereignty over all other creatures on the planet. When I am eating a cheeseburger I am acting within the bounds of objective moral sovereignty, when you eat one your merely practicing speciesm or might makes right.

So it is 'might makes right' in all cases: in your case, it is the might of God that makes it right. And it is your *subjective opinion* that the nature of God should determine human morality.

I didn't say you said anything, I said that following your criteria to it's logical conclusion what I posted would be the result.

And I disagree.

Whatever ethics humans or which ever species is dominate is the exact opposite of objective morality. I am going to have to assume that you just can't understand what objective morality means but I will give it one last chance:

You have stated this many times, but you have failed to show how my system doesn't satisfy your criteria.

1. Let's start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception. An object independent of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Applied to moral values; if they are objective, then they are discovered, not invented.

OK, is human well-being discovered or invented? I would say that it is discovered, hence is objective.

Contrast this with subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to ask: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it is not enough to show some external ground for morality and then subjectively link that grounding with obligation. Obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference and also have some significant grounding in the object of perception.

And does not human well-being satisfy this criterion? Yes, it does.

2. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.

Does human well-being depend on the opinion of who is making the judgment? Again, no, it doesn't. So, again it is an objective criterion.

3. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad", "Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them. Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you.

And, again, does human well-being depend on the person uttering it? Again, no, it doesn't. So, once again, it satisfies the criteria that *you* have set up for objectivity.

4. “Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.”

And is human well-being independent of any one person's opinion? And again, yes. So once again, it satisfies your criterion.

5. And finally the one I use the most. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

And again, does human well-being satisfy this criterion? Is it independent of regulations chosen by societies (or even deities)? And again, the answer is yes. So it satisfies *ALL* of your criteria for objectivity of morals.

Your opinion or preference that human well being is an objective moral value and duty violates every definition above and the hundreds I didn't post.

One the contrary, it satisfies ALL of them.

I know of only on professional atheist who defends objective morality without God (Sam Harris) when he faced William Lane Craig we was forced to admit that his position was based completely on personal assumptions which lack any evidence in his world view.

I guess you have met another.

I am going to cut the post in half, including reiterating that above definitions yet again will make this post too long. Continued below.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I would agree that we would share certain scientific fundamentals, but again I don't see the relevance.



There are intelligent species every where you look. Our well being comes at the cost of all other species well being, so we again circle the drain we begin with. Humans impose their own well being because we can. Might makes right.

With God humanity was given sovereignty over all other creatures on the planet. When I am eating a cheeseburger I am acting within the bounds of objective moral sovereignty, when you eat one your merely practicing speciesm or might makes right.

I didn't say you said anything, I said that following your criteria to it's logical conclusion what I posted would be the result.

Whatever ethics humans or which ever species is dominate is the exact opposite of objective morality. I am going to have to assume that you just can't understand what objective morality means but I will give it one last chance:

1. Let's start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception. An object independent of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Applied to moral values; if they are objective, then they are discovered, not invented. Contrast this with subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to ask: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it is not enough to show some external ground for morality and then subjectively link that grounding with obligation. Obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference and also have some significant grounding in the object of perception.
apologetics.net | What is objective morality?

2. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.
Moral Argument

3. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad", "Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them. Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you.
What is objective morality?

4. “Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.”
Read more: “Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

5. And finally the one I use the most. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

Your opinion or preference that human well being is an objective moral value and duty violates every definition above and the hundreds I didn't post. I know of only on professional atheist who defends objective morality without God (Sam Harris) when he faced William Lane Craig we was forced to admit that his position was based completely on personal assumptions which lack any evidence in his world view.

I am going to cut the post in half, including reiterating that above definitions yet again will make this post too long. Continued below.

I'm not sure why you're describing a moral code established by fiat of a god "malum in se" and not "malum prohibitum."

In fact, if you're arguing that "malum prohibitum" is the only true sort of wrong, then it seems to me that you're saying that only a morality that stands independently - i.e. independently of God - would count.

 

[1robin]

Not true. because they focus on human well-being, they are objective for humans. For example, I would expect that even an alien race with different morals would be able to recognize what promotes human well-being. So that *is* a moral standard.

Human well being (see post #682) is not objective because it being the goal of morality only exists in your head.

However even if we pretend human well being is the objective goal for morality. Who's version are we going to try first. It would take hundreds of years to determine just how much well being an given theory would produce and we would have to repeat the experiment for every crackpot theory there is,

No, I am not saying your interpretation of your book is wrong. I am saying the book itself is wrong. I am saying that belief in a deity at all is wrong.

Again that entails you versus 2000 years of scholarship. The bible must make at least 100,000 claims and tens of thousands have been shown to be true. For example the obscure Roman titles Luke uses were once thought to be evidence that his writings were wrong, only to find out yet again he had every single title correct and Paul's passion narratives date to with a few years or even a few months of Christ's resurrection. The bible is not some monolithic block of claims which either all stand or fall together.

No, it is your *arbitrary* choice to use God's 'nature' as your moral standard. It is no more objective than using human well-being as the standard. In fact, it is probably much *less* objective.

My acceptance of moral values and duties than reflect the eternal nature of the only morally perfect being that has ever existed is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

OK, why would you think that God's 'nature' is 'the highest objectivity possible'??? That is just silliness. It is a matter you *your* opinion or of the opinion of those you use to interpret a book written *by humans* and is thereby much *less* objective than using human well-being as the standard.

You still do not understand objectivity and I no longer can justify posting definitions and explanations.

Does tribal warfare promote human well-being? No. So you are wrong.

You said morality is based on biology or our nature is what determines morality (I assume you mean evolution), social Darwinism is tribal oriented.

The book is irrelevant to truth.

The book is a fountain of truth.

You can believe any myth you want. That doesn't make it true or objective.

Myth has even being ruled out among the mainstream non-theistic scholars concerning the Gospels. Myths are almost impossible to start when thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses exist when the events are recorded and it is even harder to get those who know for a fact whether Christ healed the sick, raised the dead, fed thousands with a few fish and a loaf of bread, and the hundreds the witnessed his presence post partum to suffer a lifetime of persecution and likely death for the messages they taught.

The group most qualified to know (NT historians regardless of whether they had faith). Their consensus is that at least 5 facts about Christ are historically reliable.

1. He claimed an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
3. That he died on a cross at the behest of the Hebrew priestly class.
4. That his tomb was found empty.
5. That even his enemies claimed to meet him post mortem.

Those alone are enough to base Christian faith on but they are accompanied by thousands of purely historical claims just like them. Instead of dressing up what you do not like as something that does not exist let's look at one of the (if not the) greatest scholars on testimony and evidence in human history.


Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.

H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."

Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."

In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:

The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, reviling's, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Harvard Law Professor Examines the Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection - Y-Jesus.com

So in a religious forum the only thing you will delete and not reckon with is theology. The above is as historic as ancient texts get.

 

[1robin]

If murder is 'unjustified killing', then the fact that it is unjustified implies that it is prohibited, yes?

It does in every case except abortion which is the least justifiable killing imaginable. As I said, the great wordsmith Chesterton said that for the most part non-theists and theists agree about what is wrong (murder), the non-theists just disagree with the theists over which wrongs) to excuse (abortion). Convenience is insufficient to take the life of an innocent third party.

If you attached yourself to my body, linking our blood systems in a way that you would die if we were separated, I would still have the right to separate you. And this is even though you are a thinking, feeling, moral person. And until the brain develops enough to even have a possibility of consciousness, there is no moral requirement. Now, that *is* a vague line, so we can push back to, say, 24 weeks of pregnancy for that sake. But even after that, the health of the person within whose body this is happening is paramount.

It makes me shiver to think there are people who equate a human fetus with tumor.

I have said repeatedly that abortion for convenience (well over 90% of all abortions) is unjustifiable murder on an industrial scale. I did not say anything about what to do for the tiny fraction of abortions concerning the threat to the mother's life.

Yeah, I am a bit disgusted right now also. Anything to condemnt gays or people who decide not to have children.

I do not want to discuss abortion for now. I know the tactics abortions defenders use I could type out every argument you will use and why it will fail. They come in 3 types and in about a dozen forms, none of which work.

Not at all. Whether it promotes overall human well-being depends greatly on implementation, especially in these cases. I truthfully don't think it is *possible* to implement them in a way that is moral.

That's because in your worldview morality equals whatever you prefer. A behavior that results in massive damage and which does not have sufficient justification is condemnable whether or not anyone has the solution to it.

And I am a humanist that think such laws are very immoral. They inevitably are autocratic.

So we should allow drunk driving, drug abuse, protestation, and theft because I label them autocratic. In the history of man homosexuality has been condemned far more than it has been condoned. Even in many of the societies that allowed it also viewed with shame.

However there is no point discussing solutions until the obvious fact it is unjustifiable is accepted.

Sorry, but if you restrict sex to marriage (an insane notion to begin with), then divorce *must* be allowed and accepted for those who find themselves incompatible for whatever reason. Much better just to do away with the institution entirely. The only reason I am married is for health insurance. Yes, my wife and I love each other and have no intention of ever separating, but involving the government was required only because of our insane health insurance methods.

Above you said stopping a behavior that kills millions and costs billions was immoral, now your claiming stopping another behavior that would save even more lives and even more money is insane. Whatever human well being is, you seem to be on the other team.

How would 'more damage' be the case in a married, committed, monogamous gay couple?

The jury has gone home on homosexuality.

But tearing down the house to fix a roof leak is unlikely to be the best plan.

What in the world are you talking about?

No, We prohibit many of them because they interfere with human well-being in some way that requires the government to step in. When the enforcement is worse than the issue, then there is a problem. Unfortunately, this is also often the case--we make a problem worse by making it illegal.

Good luck getting human well being enforced if laws only make things worse, when it isn't certain what that means, and when no one knows how best to accomplish it anyway. You won't get the Christian vote, the Islamic vote, the Buddhist vote, not even the communist atheistic utopian vote. Whatever it is your selling, does not seem to have a customer base.

 

[1robin]

So it is 'might makes right' in all cases: in your case, it is the might of God that makes it right. And it is your *subjective opinion* that the nature of God should determine human morality.

Quote any statement I have made that suggests that God's power has any relevance to moral values and duties.

I can't keep explaining that God's morals flow from his eternal nature. I am going to have to start ignoring your claims about morality with God being subjective. He did not pick what would be good or bad o a whim, not did he select it from an external standard. Since God IS love, our hating each other contradicts an objective moral fact. I a done explaining this.

And I disagree.

That's a declaration not an argument.

You have stated this many times, but you have failed to show how my system doesn't satisfy your criteria.

I have demonstrated many times in many ways.

1. The human well being is an objective thing.
2. But choosing it as the goal of morality is subjective because it is merely your preference.
3. Our well being comes at the cost of just about all other creatures well being. Speciesm is worse than racism. Your reasoning was used by Hitler and Hirohito who believed that their winning the war against inferior species would lead to a stronger human race.

OK, is human well-being discovered or invented? I would say that it is discovered, hence is objective.

I have stated over and over that the objective existence of something does not make it the goal for morality. To do that requires opinions and preferences which are subjective. Why should our well being triumph over bovine well being? They both objectively exist, the difference is that your moral preference comes with a cattle prod and a bolt gun.

Nature can show you what human well being is, it can never show you that that is the way things ought to be.

And does not human well-being satisfy this criterion? Yes, it does.

No, that is why no one uses it as the moral foundation for their nation. Has there ever been a significant humanist empire that existed long enough to evaluate? I used to work in federal courtrooms around the nation, when bored I would read from the judges law library. I never saw the terms human well being in any of them.

Does human well-being depend on the opinion of who is making the judgment? Again, no, it doesn't. So, again it is an objective criterion.

Yes, if it is claimed to be the goal of morality then it is 100% opinion, preference, and judgment.

Show me the proof that human well being SHOULD be the goal of morality.

And, again, does human well-being depend on the person uttering it? Again, no, it doesn't. So, once again, it satisfies the criteria that *you* have set up for objectivity.

And, again, it is an objective thing, but selecting it as the goal of morality is absolutely dependent on the one uttering it.

And is human well-being independent of any one person's opinion? And again, yes. So once again, it satisfies your criterion.

Is this ever going to end? Human well being is an objective thing, so is the production of soap, so is camel's milk, so is the radio signature of Saturn, so is mosquito, so is the happiness of Giraffes on average, so is the flourishing of bacteria. However you selecting one of those out and claiming it is the goal of moral is not objective, it is 100% subjective, it violates every test I gave for objectivity, and does not even seem to be a goal you would live consistently with.

And again, does human well-being satisfy this criterion? Is it independent of regulations chosen by societies (or even deities)? And again, the answer is yes. So it satisfies *ALL* of your criteria for objectivity of morals.

It exists as data objectively, it exists as moral values and duties in your subjective preference.

One the contrary, it satisfies ALL of them.

What your claiming is so well known and without exception it has become an axiom.

Nature can only tell us what is (that human well being is a thing), but nature can't possibly tell us what should be (that human well being should be the goal of morality).

I guess you have met another.

No, you make even Harris look rational (he at least admitted he was assuming morality exists without God). Your a one of a kind hybrid who believes eternal moral facts are subjective, that the preferences of a morally insane species are objective, and you will refuse to accept what either standard leads to.

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure why you're describing a moral code established by fiat of a god "malum in se" and not "malum prohibitum."

It's because I was not defining a moral or value defined by the fiat of a God.

In fact, if you're arguing that "malum prohibitum" is the only true sort of wrong, then it seems to me that you're saying that only a morality that stands independently - i.e. independently of God - would count.

1. I don't get it. The very quote you called into question contained the word sinful, which is used in connection with God more than in all other contexts combined. I guess that is why you edited it.
2. I quoted the Latin definition of objective morality.
3. Neither it nor I said anything about morality being independent of everything.
4. While I didn't say what you claimed I have said (along with countless moral theorists) that morality in inherent, as in Jefferson claiming we have inherent rights. Well the term inherent means: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
5. So we must have something which exists permanently, necessarily, and with moral attributes to ground objective morality in, the universe isn't permanent nor moral, looks like God fits the criteria perfectly, however.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bible is not some monolithic block of claims which either all stand or fall together.

Actually, it is if it is what it purports to be - of divine origin. You're describing a book that a collection of ancient human beings would put together. If the book isn't better than any book men could have written, then why treat it as a god's word, consider it authoritative, or base your life on it?

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, reviling's, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution.

Not too appealing. I think I'll remain a secular humanist if you don't mind.

So the Branch Davidians at Waco must definitely have been righteous, pious, and in touch with a divine source given their the strength of their convictions and their willingness not only to be martyred, but to take their children with them.

The willingness to subject oneself to ostracism, forfeiture, torture, and death is not an argument for any ideology.

But it's an argument against faith based thought.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Good luck getting human well being enforced if laws only make things worse, when it isn't certain what that means, and when no one knows how best to accomplish it anyway. You won't get the Christian vote, the Islamic vote, the Buddhist vote, not even the communist atheistic utopian vote. Whatever it is your selling, does not seem to have a customer base.

We have a very good idea of what human well-being entails. It's why there a professional boards certifying and monitoring professionals, why there are restaurant inspection laws, why there are guard rails, why the water is tested and food inspected, why we have building codes, why we have Social Security and Medicare, why we have an Environmental Protection Agency, and why we have so many other similar government protections.

People also want dignity, autonomy, respect, and both economic and social opportunity.

I think we'll find a "customer base" for that - maybe even you.

 

[Polymath257]

Human well being (see post #682) is not objective because it being the goal of morality only exists in your head.

And your claim that it should abide by the nature of a creator is in your head. You arbitrarily chose that standard. I choose one closer to home and that is easier to determine and generally avowed, even by non-theists.

However even if we pretend human well being is the objective goal for morality. Who's version are we going to try first. It would take hundreds of years to determine just how much well being an given theory would produce and we would have to repeat the experiment for every crackpot theory there is,

Would you say the same about human health? Because your objection is just as valid in that limited case as it is in general. So, yes, we learn over time what constitutes human well-being. That seems a reasonable way to proceed, don't you think?

My acceptance of moral values and duties than reflect the eternal nature of the only morally perfect being that has ever existed is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

It is at least as arbitrary as saying morality should be based in human well-being.

And that doesn't even address the issue of what it means for a being to be 'morally perfect' if we don't know what morality means without this being. It seems a bit circular, don't you think?

And *that* doesn't even address the issue of whether such a being even exists in the first place. Given that most 'proofs' of the existence of deities cannot address this issue of morality, it seems like a very open question.

You still do not understand objectivity and I no longer can justify posting definitions and explanations.

I showed how the values I proposed are objective by your criteria.

You said morality is based on biology or our nature is what determines morality (I assume you mean evolution), social Darwinism is tribal oriented.

No, I don't necessarily mean evolution. I mean the nature of humans as a *result* of that evolution. Well-being, like health is dependent on the specifics of our biology (there are many things we cannot eat but other animals can, for example). In what sorts of environments are we best able to reach fulfillment of a stable society that is also psychologically full for its members?

The book is a fountain of truth.

It is a piece of propaganda embedded in some history and with a very questionable back story.

Myth has even being ruled out among the mainstream non-theistic scholars concerning the Gospels. Myths are almost impossible to start when thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses exist when the events are recorded and it is even harder to get those who know for a fact whether Christ healed the sick, raised the dead, fed thousands with a few fish and a loaf of bread, and the hundreds the witnessed his presence post partum to suffer a lifetime of persecution and likely death for the messages they taught.

Isn't it funny how the legend grew between the earlier gospels and that of John? You claim that thousands saw these miracles. I say that those thousands are fictional.

The group most qualified to know (NT historians regardless of whether they had faith). Their consensus is that at least 5 facts about Christ are historically reliable.

1. He claimed an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
3. That he died on a cross at the behest of the Hebrew priestly class.
4. That his tomb was found empty.
5. That even his enemies claimed to meet him post mortem.

How about Ehrman? Butz? Pagels?

You like to make claims that go *way* beyond the evidence.

(ill-considered propaganda deleted).

 

[ArtieE]

It does in every case except abortion which is the least justifiable killing imaginable. As I said, the great wordsmith Chesterton said that for the most part non-theists and theists agree about what is wrong (murder), the non-theists just disagree with the theists over which wrongs) to excuse (abortion).

70% of Women Who Get Abortions Identify as Christians, Survey Finds

 

[Polymath257]

Well your going to continuously have situations where you must sacrifice one to get the other. IOW I would not like anyone to raise my taxes (it would make me unhappy) but to get everyone healthier would require we raise taxes on everyone. This kind of internal contradiction and unknowability explains why no nation on earth uses your standard to ground legality.

On the contrary, it is precisely why we have representative forms of government to balance the different viewpoints.

You talk about internal contradiction and unknowability *and* promote the existence of a deity as the standard of morality? Really?

The mind boggles.