Atheistic Double Standard?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think what 1robin means is that it once was objectively moral to kill homosexuals, then it stopped being objectively moral, but if tomorrow God commands us to kill homosexuals it becomes objectively moral again.

I'm presuming that that is sarcasm.

 

[Polymath257]

BTW on evolution your brain has been selected based on survival not truth, why do you trust it?

BTW, if you don't want to answer me, or cannot for various reasons, don't worry. As far as I know, I still can freely answer your questions.

In this case, survival meant that some correspondence with truth was necessary: too much divergence from truth would lead to ignoring potential threats.

But, and this is important, we *know* our brains and our sensory systems *do* have real issues. We cannot see outside of a very narrow spectrum of light. We cannot heard outside of a less narrow spectrum of sound. ALL of our senses are subject to illusions of various sorts.

This is why observation and subsequent *testing* is so important. We absolutely *know* we do not see the 'whole picture' and that often what we do see is distorted. Learning how we tend to make errors in analysis, how our senses fail us, and how we tend to miss what is real is a big part of learning about the world around us.

So, yes, our senses are the basis for our knowledge, but an uncritical acceptance is prone to failure. Our intuitions are prone to be wrong and we frequently misinterpret our experiences.

Here's a fun video to show some of the issues:

Can you name, or even imagine an action which you can prove is objectively evil without referring to the supernatural?

Genocide.

 

[1robin]

In my experience (which would be a data set in the tens of thousands) they do not do as at even remotely at the same rate. It is hard to admit you stand condemned by Godless ethics merely based on social fashion and preference. It's much easier to see we fail the absolute morality laid out by God than the socio relative by anyone of the 6 billion people on earth.

I do not mean the person who admits they sometime make mistakes, I mean the kind of divine sinfulness and condemnation that produces repentance before God and the acceptance of God's provision for our universal moral insanity.

Ok, after my investigation into a recent series of events concerning our discussion, I have chose to no longer debate you. Too bad, there are far too few good debaters on here. I am here to be challenged, not to become entangled with an overly sensitive poster.

 

[1robin]

So the goal of objective morals would be to increase human well being?

The ultimate human well being the bible is concerned with is spiritual well being. The law is given to both be the goal for our behavior, and a mirror which reveals our moral imperfection, which is to lead us to repent, accept Christ and eventually spend eternity in perfect contentment with God.

However lets pretend that only this earthly life was the purpose of morality. Then human well being would be an objective moral goal for humanity.

Without God using human well being as the goal of morality is still as subjective as it has always. With God human well being would be an objective moral goal, but his definition (not yours) is what would determine what true human well being would be.

I can't believed you thought this was some clever counter argument.

So far I have had a 100% failure rate concerning this question, but what the heck. Name any action, you can even invent a hypothetical action, that you can prove is actually objectively evil, without appealing to the supernatural. Do you realize that if you succeed you would have done what no scholar has ever done before. You would be the philosophical Darwin.

 

[1robin]

LOL You just said that the goal of God's objective morality was "To create a just world, with far less suffering than we experience." And that is what I prefer. So what I prefer is the same as the goal of your objective morality.

That was never the argument (even though you posted tis exact same thing earlier). The argument is about what is necessary to make a moral, goal, value, or duty objectively true.

If God does not exist then no objective moral goals, values, or duties exist. Not good ones, not bad ones, just a bunch of amoral preferences.

If God exists then objective moral goals, values, and duties do exist and his nature determines which are good and which are evil.

If your preferred moral goals line up with God's eternal moral nature then why do you deny the source that makes your preferences actually true? Belief in God even comes with an unimaginable eternal retirement package.

 

[1robin]

This sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy. If any reader of this thread comes across a person who suddenly has religious experiences or shows signs of hyper religiosity please advice them to seek medical help. These could be symptoms of disease or injury of the brain.

Yes that's exactly what I responded. And is what I wrote true or false? Be very very careful how you answer that question because anybody can look up temporal lobe epilepsy, religious experiences and hyper religiosity and learn for themselves...

I have known about this for two decades and when first encountered I set out to learn about it's relevancy to miraculous claims.

Anyway,

1. You made the above statement.
2. Then you denied making it.
3. When re-quoted it you admitted making it, but you set in to rationalizing it.

This is the equivalent of there existing an insect that exists in a single pond in Florida which carries a disease that makes the victim thirsty. Having billions from every corner of the earth claim to be thirsty and you reply is to tell anyone who is thirsty to rule out being bitten by a bug that lives in one square mile of Florida. It is a silly response. 99.9% of those claiming supernatural experiences show no signs of epilepsy over the coarse of their live, and countless aspects of true faith have no relationship to epilepsy what so ever. Not even the comparative handful of epileptics have supernatural experiences. This is just a ridiculous attempt to obfuscate what you find inconvenient.

 

[1robin]

I think what 1robin means is that it once was objectively moral to kill homosexuals, then it stopped being objectively moral, but if tomorrow God commands us to kill homosexuals it becomes objectively moral again.

I have a great idea, why don't you let the bible stand as is, let my statements stand as they are, let mainstream doctrine remain as written instead of paraphrasing everything colored by you bias. You have straw men chasing red hearings all over the places.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm presuming that that is sarcasm.

No... Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." If it was objectively moral to kill homosexuals then, but became objectively immoral for some reason later, why couldn't it become objectively moral again tomorrow if God commands it?

 

[1robin]

BTW, if you don't want to answer me, or cannot for various reasons, don't worry. As far as I know, I still can freely answer your questions.

In this case, survival meant that some correspondence with truth was necessary: too much divergence from truth would lead to ignoring potential threats.

But, and this is important, we *know* our brains and our sensory systems *do* have real issues. We cannot see outside of a very narrow spectrum of light. We cannot heard outside of a less narrow spectrum of sound. ALL of our senses are subject to illusions of various sorts.

This is why observation and subsequent *testing* is so important. We absolutely *know* we do not see the 'whole picture' and that often what we do see is distorted. Learning how we tend to make errors in analysis, how our senses fail us, and how we tend to miss what is real is a big part of learning about the world around us.

So, yes, our senses are the basis for our knowledge, but an uncritical acceptance is prone to failure. Our intuitions are prone to be wrong and we frequently misinterpret our experiences.

Here's a fun video to show some of the issues:

Genocide.

Actually this is great because I forgot to use something I meant to weave into the debate, before made the debate unbearable. I have never seen a debate as accurately summed up by a scholar as ours. So, I submit a summary of our debate called the Devil's delusion which you may delete or ignore at your earliest convenience.

The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

(Paperback edition, Basic Books, September 2009)


“Berlinski’s book is everything desirable: it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned. I congratulate him.” —William F. Buckley Jr.

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
About Devil's Delusion - David Berlinski

 

[ArtieE]

So far I have had a 100% failure rate concerning this question, but what the heck. Name any action, you can even invent a hypothetical action, that you can prove is actually objectively evil, without appealing to the supernatural. Do you realize that if you succeed you would have done what no scholar has ever done before. You would be the philosophical Darwin.

It is an objective fact that humans have a self-preservation/survival instinct. It is an objective fact that living in well functioning societies increases our chances of well-being and survival. Therefore it's objectively wrong for me to do something that hurts the society I live in. Any action I might take that is more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society I live in and the people in it would be objectively immoral.

What is IMMORAL?
Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency.
Law Dictionary: What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[1robin]

It was a copy of your own claim applied to myself, instead of yourself. So pot calling the kettle black.

Please quote what statement of mine your referring to.

Yeah, but it wouldn't make you look very good because you haven't shown your version of reality correspond to objective fact beyond the following: That you might have damage of some sort.

We are not discussing how good a moral values is, how hard it is to follow it, how much well being it results in, how much damage it causes, or how we arrive at our moral standards.

The discussion has been about what is required for moral values and duties to be objectively true.

My primary arguments have weathered all scrutiny, unscathed for at least 3000 years. You can't compromise them away, you rationalize them away, you can't flank them, nor is there a third. 1 and only 1 of the following "if then" conditions is true.

1. If God exists objective moral truth can exist.
2. If God does not exist then morals are nothing more than preference or socio biological illusions. According to Michael Ruse, the non-theistic philosopher of science

 

[ArtieE]

If your preferred moral goals line up with God's eternal moral nature then why do you deny the source that makes your preferences actually true?

Because it's the other way around. The reason our "preferred moral goals line up with God's eternal moral nature" is because we invented this god in our image. It is hardly a coincidence that humans interested in our own well-being and survival invents a god interested in our well-being and survival.

 

[ArtieE]

I have a great idea, why don't you let the bible stand as is, let my statements stand as they are, let mainstream doctrine remain as written instead of paraphrasing everything colored by you bias. You have straw men chasing red hearings all over the places.

I also have a great idea. Tell me where I go wrong. Here is what I said:

"I think what 1robin means is that it once was objectively moral to kill homosexuals, then it stopped being objectively moral, but if tomorrow God commands us to kill homosexuals it becomes objectively moral again."

Where do I go wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

I have known about this for two decades and when first encountered I set out to learn about it's relevancy to miraculous claims.

Anyway,

1. You made the above statement.
2. Then you denied making it.
3. When re-quoted it you admitted making it, but you set in to rationalizing it.

This is the equivalent of there existing an insect that exists in a single pond in Florida which carries a disease that makes the victim thirsty. Having billions from every corner of the earth claim to be thirsty and you reply is to tell anyone who is thirsty to rule out being bitten by a bug that lives in one square mile of Florida. It is a silly response. 99.9% of those claiming supernatural experiences show no signs of epilepsy over the coarse of their live, and countless aspects of true faith have no relationship to epilepsy what so ever. Not even the comparative handful of epileptics have supernatural experiences. This is just a ridiculous attempt to obfuscate what you find inconvenient.

Let's try this again shall we?

"This sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy. If any reader of this thread comes across a person who suddenly has religious experiences or shows signs of hyper religiosity please advice them to seek medical help. These could be symptoms of disease or injury of the brain.

Is this true or false?

 

[ArtieE]

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

Just for fun check this out:
Twelve Proofs of the Inexistence of God

 

[ArtieE]

If God exists then objective moral goals, values, and duties do exist and his nature determines which are good and which are evil.

OK. So once it was in God's nature that men having sex with each other was immoral and that they should be killed, then it wasn't in God's nature that men having sex with each other was immoral and they shouldn't be killed, but tomorrow it might become in God's nature that men having sex with each other is immoral and they should be killed again?

 

[1robin]

You just said that the goal of God's objective morality was "To create a just world, with far less suffering than we experience."

God's morality comes in a hierarchy. It does not change in nature or with time though the commands he basis on those eternal moral concepts may change based on his purpose and the capacity of human kind.

1. God's first priority is that all those that are willing will come into a loving relationship with him, which guarantees eventual perfect eternal contentment with God himself.
2. For those people who do there are additional moral commands and duties. This group of people will be persecuted and possibly even killed just like Jesus was. A world in rebellion hates those who cease rebelling. This group would be denied temporal well being in many cases, but rewarded with eternal well being.
3. For the rest of the masses morality was given as a standard by which our failures can easily be seen, yes they would provide peace, comfort, loving relationships, and well being on average. However we would rather rebel against those precepts and concentrate on fulfilling fleshly appetites.

Which would mean increased human well-being. I am a human and I want more well-being.

Here again I could rest my case, you freely admit that your moral criteria are simply what you prefer. What a site that would be 6 billion people living 6 billion independent moral systems based on their preference.

My subjective goal, well-being and survival, is the same as your god's objective goal for me.

God's interest is primarily in your eternal well being in strict subordination to your temporal well being. If you actually believed what you said you would be following God's laws, since you claim you both have the same goals.

Have you actually read the Old Testament? Is tribal warfare objectively right or wrong?

About 3 times cover to cover and intensely study many of it's parts. Enough to know that your question is meaningless.

If God exists nothing is objectively right or wrong. The entire categories of objective moral truths don't exist without God. Tribal warfare would certainly be consistent with amoral evolution.

If God does exist then each case of tribal warfare must stand on it's own merits. God himself punished Israel for many of it's wars. You can't lump thousands of years worth of events and claim they all stand or fall together.

Except that it is your subjective preference to base your morality on this god and not something else.

The difference is that my subjective opinion may correspond to an objective fact. If God does not exist then your subjective opinions can't correspond to moral facts because there are none exist to correspond to.

How many pregnant women and children lost their lives in the Flood and all the other atrocities in the Old Testament because of your god's objective morality?

The exact same number that will dwell eternally with God in completely contentment without having had to suffer as long in this veil of tears as most. The bible said that every thought that generation had was of evil, continuously. A God who would have let the oppression, rape, torture, human sacrifice, inequality, violence, war, and brutal tyranny infect a thousand generations would be the God rejected for cruelty.

It's objectively wrong for a member of a species with an evolved survival instinct to act in a manner that decreases chances of survival. That is why we call such acts immoral in the first place.

No it isn't, plus it's a circular argument. Species well being isn't an objective moral goal, especially when it comes at the expense of the well being of all other creatures. That isn't even a subjective virtue, it speciesm which is far worse than racism.

So you might want to try again and keep in mind objective moral values and duties are the type that are true even if no one believes they exist. I can define for you the 6 ways I did for another poster but I fear it will make just as little difference in this discussion as that one.[/quote][/quote]

 

[1robin]

But according to God's objective morals is killing homosexuals objectively right or objectively wrong?

Homosexuality is just as wrong today as it was in the Davidic Kingdom. The Hebrews based on a promise to Abraham made the Jewish people his conduit. To preserve the integrity of that conduit he gave them very strict laws and harsh punishments because they were surrounded by evil tribes and God wanted Israel to be the proverbial beckon on the hill. Even as rebellious as the Hebrews were he must have got it somewhat right because the theological revelations born in a tiny backwater of the Roman empire has changed the world more that any similar set of events.

However outside of Israel and even in Israel in the past 2000 years killing homosexuals (no matter how many they themselves kill) has not been authorized by God.

So:
1. Homosexuality - Always wrong.
2. In one tiny nation for a very finite period it carried a possible death penalty.
3. For the rest of 99.9% of cultures and history Yahweh has never commanded that any homosexual to be harmed in any way. There are now Christian run homosexual counseling centers (which have the highest rate of success compared to any similar organization), homosexual ministers (which I do not agree with), and even homosexual churches.

 

[1robin]

Have you read the Old Testament? 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." So is it objectively right or objectively wrong to "destroy by any means necessary anyone outside my tribe who competes with it"?

Why do you ask the same question in 2 -3 different ways, in 2 - 3 different posts, and ignore the response every time.

To cover the different tribal wars in enough detain to acquire resolution requires a lot of work. We would have to drop everything else to concentrate of them one at a time. I am willing to do the work, are you, let me know if you want to concentrate on OT warfare alone so we can drop the rest and get into which ever one you want to tackle. Your choice, do not make it lightly.

 

[1robin]

It is an objective fact that humans have a self-preservation/survival instinct. It is an objective fact that living in well functioning societies increases our chances of well-being and survival.

I can agree with that, but how we achieve that goal would require thousands of years. The same way that after tens of thousands of years to think about it there are more theories on how to make money, not less. When Burdy Madoff gets it wrong a few thousand people go broke, when some Orwellian scheme fails tens of millions could died.

Hitler's Germany was one of the Haeckel social Darwinian efforts.

Therefore it's objectively wrong for me to do something that hurts the society I live in. Any action I might take that is more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society I live in and the people in it would be objectively immoral.

Absolutely 100% wrong, but I am sick of explaining why.

What is IMMORAL?

Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency.
Law Dictionary: What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

Before you want to know what immorality means would you want to know what morality is?

This will be a complete waste of my time but since part of the reason I debate is to kill time, on rides the mail.

True morality, objective morality, actual moral values and duties, etc..... are defined like so.

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.

The criteria you described in your post fail every test for objective truth.