Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

I'd like to jump in here if you allow it. What exactly do you mean when you talk about 'Morality'? What is it that you are evaluating when you determine something is moral, amoral or immoral? Usually when I talk to people what they actually mean when talking about morality is that we are evaluating the consequences of actions and whether or not they affect the well being of thinking creatures positively or negatively.

Jump on in.

I am making two simplistic arguments.

1. If God (Yahweh) exists then objective morality exists.

What objective morality means is:

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.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

Since one definition is never enough let me give a few more.
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
____________________________________________________________________________________

2. If God (Yahweh) does not exists then at best you left with ethics, but ethics simply derived from preference. And the way we determines who's ethical preferences become law. By might makes right or who has the most guns. This is called subjective ethics, defined below:

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

Keep in mind I am not discussing epistemology (how we come to know about morality), nor am I defending or denying any certain law. I am just giving two "if - then" arguments that result in what kind of morality we have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have given at least two exhaustive reasons why it was necessary to make homosexuality a capitol offence for a specific culture, for a specific reason, for a specific time. Then once that purpose was fulfilled God remanded the law, not the nature the evil of homosexuality.

It was at that point that your claim to objective morality perished. Objective morality would not be different for the Jews. And no purpose was fulfilled.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not being able to create a married bachelor does not imply a lack of power but a lack of a married bachelor's ability to exist.

That is the basis of the rejection of Jehovah as a logical possibility. Jehovah is the married bachelor of gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, because Stalin's demands are based on his horrifically flawed subjective insanity. Where God's moral values and duties are based on an absolutely perfect moral nature.

I don't see a difference. They were both genocidal megalomaniacs and psychopaths.

 

[1AOA1]

Perfect eternal contentment with a being who drowns a whole planet and commands humans to "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."

And materialism corrodes the soul.

 

[1AOA1]

Sorry, but it is religion that is effete.

And we have no further use for the god concept. Everything that has been explained has been explained without it, and everything that remains to be explained can potentially be explained without it. Fine tuning was mentioned. The fact that there are physical laws and constants at all argues against a god. It removes the need for a god. It suggests that if there is a god, it is constrained in its creative choices. And it is better explained with a multiverse hypothesis.

Man's religious phase will be remembered as the period between the tie we first began to wonder and when we found our answers, none of them involving gods.

A specific microscope under specific conditions will continue to bring microscopic answers and explanations for the phenomenon being experienced. Just as all the conditions and instrumentation which are collectively referred to as science will each have their own answers and explanations. That doesn't remove the need for God from which the word of God about the environment comes.

I don't see a difference. They were both genocidal megalomaniacs

When genocide is said to be equal to what Stalin did, the word genocide assimilates all aspects of the activity, including the purpose for which Stalin engaged in the activity and the apparent outcomes, which makes the word genocide unequal to the acts of God since the purpose and consequence do not match that in the word genocide.

 

[Desert Snake]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Non believers technically cant make any claims /they dont believe anything/. Might want to consider your concepts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A specific microscope under specific conditions will continue to bring microscopic answers and explanations for the phenomenon being experienced. Just as all the conditions and instrumentation which are collectively referred to as science will each have their own answers and explanations. That doesn't remove the need for God from which the word of God about the environment comes.

Your meaning was unclear to me. I repeat:

We have no further use for the god concept. Everything that has been explained has been explained without it, and everything that remains to be explained can potentially be explained without it. Fine tuning was mentioned. The fact that there are physical laws and constants at all argues against a god. It removes the need for a god. It suggests that if there is a god, it is constrained in its creative choices. And it is better explained with a multiverse hypothesis.​

Did you care to address any of that? I explained to you why he have no further need for a god concept. You merely said the opposite without providing a counterargument. What do we need a god concept for when everything that has been explained has been explained without one, and everything still unexplained could have a naturalisitic explanation.

This is not to say that a god couldn't be the answer. It says none need be the answer. We considered gods to be the best explanation for the reality we awakened to find ourselves born into because it was the only one we could imagine. Nobody could imagine the universe evolving from nearly nothing into the world we inhabit. Now, we not only have imagined naturalisitic explanations for the historical development of the universe, the sun and earth, and the biosphere, we have confirmation that our naturalistic explanations are correct

When genocide is said to be equal to what Stalin did, the word genocide assimilates all aspects of the activity, including the purpose for which Stalin engaged in the activity and the apparent outcomes, which makes the word genocide unequal to the acts of God since the purpose and consequence do not match that in the word genocide.

The genocides committed or commanded by Jehovah were for the purpose of exterminating very large numbers of people,just as with Stalin and any other genocidal human being.

It's pretty hard to defend this god's choices. It ends up being a might-makes-right defense or a puny minds defense - our puny human minds cannot appreciate the infinite beneficence in these choices.

Can you name a character in all of history and fiction that killed more human beings that Jehovah, or that inflicted more suffering on the human race than Jehovah? Can you name another character that has been more unjust than the one who punished every member of the human race for the predictable disobedience of a couple of naive young people still lacking the knowledge of good and evil and left in the presence of a malicious deceiver, and not just in this life, where men must toil in the fields, women suffer and often die in childbirth? Even the beasts were punished, turning on one another for food.

What action can you name, fact or fiction, that was more unjust than that?

These things seem to impossible for the believer to see. The believer will only see a good god whatever evidence to the contrary there might be. Tell him that it was the god of the Aztecs that did that, and he would have no trouble identifying that god as a monster.

It appears that only the unbeliever is capable of reading and understanding the Bible impartially, a requirement for critical thinking. Only a reader capable of reading the scriptures and coming to whatever conclusion the evidence supports can see that the god described in them is not a good god.

• "According to "Samuel," David took a census of the people. This excited the wrath of Jehovah, and as a punishment he allowed David to choose seven years of famine, a flight of three months from pursuing enemies, or three days of pestilence. David, having confidence in God, chose the three days of pestilence; and thereupon, God, the compassionate, on account of the sin of David, killed seventy thousand innocent men. Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have done?" - Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[ArtieE]

You need a more detailed definition.

(1). Definition (1) requires that an omnipotent being should be able to perform any logically possible action, that is, any action which could possibly be performed by any being at all, in any circumstances.
(2) S is omnipotent =df S can perform any action A such that it is logically possible that S does A.
Omnipotence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Not being able to create a married bachelor does not imply a lack of power but a lack of a married bachelor's ability to exist. A good God doing (especially creating) evil is a logical incoherence.

An omnipotent god must be able to do both good and evil. An omnipotent god who can't do something evil is a logical incoherence so this god can't exist. An omnipotent good god who can do anything (omnipotent) but at the same time is good and can't do evil can't logically exist.

 

[1AOA1]

Your meaning was unclear to me. I repeat:

We have no further use for the god concept. Everything that has been explained has been explained without it, and everything that remains to be explained can potentially be explained without it. Fine tuning was mentioned. The fact that there are physical laws and constants at all argues against a god. It removes the need for a god. It suggests that if there is a god, it is constrained in its creative choices. And it is better explained with a multiverse hypothesis.​

Did you care to address any of that? I explained to you why he have no further need for a god concept. You merely said the opposite without providing a counterargument. What do we need a god concept for when everything that has been explained has been explained without one, and everything still unexplained could have a naturalisitic explanation.

It would be considered materialism-of-the-gaps to inject naturalistic explanations for phenomena which the biblical texts and other parts of Christianity do not directly enunciate on at a given point in time.

We considered gods to be the best explanation for the reality

"We considered"

The word of God comes from God, and "we" is too broad.

 

[joe1776]

Did you care to address any of that? I explained to you why he have no further need for a god concept. You merely said the opposite without providing a counterargument. What do we need a god concept for when everything that has been explained has been explained without one, and everything still unexplained could have a naturalisitic explanation.

I'll jump in and oppose you just for fun.

Since we don't know how it all began, we have no idea whether those naturalistic explanations you're talking about needed a creator or not.

Also, isn't it just as logical to say that everything that remains to be explained might be potentially explained by something other than a naturalistic explanation? The word potential, after all, says nothing at all about probability since the topic is the unknown?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll jump in and oppose you just for fun.

Since we don't know how it all began, we have no idea whether those naturalistic explanations you're talking about needed a creator or not.

Also, isn't it just as logical to say that everything that remains to be explained might be potentially explained by something other than a naturalistic explanation? The word potential, after all, says nothing at all about probability since the topic is the unknown?

I didn't say that gods don't exist. I said that we had no need of the concept of a god.

It's the same with dragons and succubi. Who can rule them out? Nevertheless, we have no need for those concepts.

 

[joe1776]

I didn't say that gods don't exist. I said that we had no need of the concept of a god.

I didn't say you said that gods don't exist. I said "Since we don't know how it all began, we have no idea whether those naturalistic explanations you're talking about needed a creator or not."

And, yes, of course, you're right we had no need of the concept of a god because, on their own, concepts are useless. We don't need them for any reason. It's the things the concepts represent that are sometimes needed. So, I repeat: We don't know if a creator was needed or not.

You didn't counter my counter about your potential of a naturalistic explanation so I'll assume we're done with that.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't say you said that gods don't exist. I said "Since we don't know how it all began, we have no idea whether those naturalistic explanations you're talking about needed a creator or not."

And, yes, of course, you're right we had no need of the concept of a god because, on their own, concepts are useless. We don't need them for any reason. It's the things the concepts represent that are sometimes needed.

This is utter nonsense. A concept is nothing more than 'things' generalized. It serves as much purpose as things do.

So, I repeat: We don't know if a creator was needed or not.

You didn't counter my counter about your potential of a naturalistic explanation so I'll assume we're done with that.

 

[joe1776]

This is utter nonsense. A concept is nothing more than 'things' generalized. It serves as much purpose as things do.

My point is that the concept detached from the thing it represents is useless. People pray to a god. They don't pray to its detached concept. Ain't necessarily So was using the word that way -- as I read it.

BTW does utter nonsense have less value than nonsense?

 

[1AOA1]

The genocides committed or commanded by Jehovah were for the purpose of exterminating very large numbers of people,just as with Stalin and any other genocidal human being.

The naturalistic purposes of the naturalistic aspect of an entity do not match those of the spiritual.

It's pretty hard to defend this god's choices. It ends up being a might-makes-right defense or a puny minds defense - our puny human minds cannot appreciate the infinite beneficence in these choices.


Can you name a character in all of history and fiction that killed more human beings that Jehovah, or that inflicted more suffering on the human race than Jehovah? Can you name another character that has been more unjust than the one who punished every member of the human race for the predictable disobedience of a couple of naive young people still lacking the knowledge of good and evil and left in the presence of a malicious deceiver, and not just in this life, where men must toil in the fields, women suffer and often die in childbirth? Even the beasts were punished, turning on one another for food.

What action can you name, fact or fiction, that was more unjust than that?

These things seem to impossible for the believer to see. The believer will only see a good god whatever evidence to the contrary there might be. Tell him that it was the god of the Aztecs that did that, and he would have no trouble identifying that god as a monster.

It appears that only the unbeliever is capable of reading and understanding the Bible impartially, a requirement for critical thinking. Only a reader capable of reading the scriptures and coming to whatever conclusion the evidence supports can see that the god described in them is not a good god.

Yet, the soul was saved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't say you said that gods don't exist. I said "Since we don't know how it all began, we have no idea whether those naturalistic explanations you're talking about needed a creator or not."

They wouldn't be naturalisitic explanations if they require a god, which was the term I used, not creator. Recall that by god, I mean a sentient, volitional, potent agent capable of creating universes like ours. Such a creator (an advanced ) need not be a god if all it created was the earth and life on it.

And, yes, of course, you're right we had no need of the concept of a god because, on their own, concepts are useless. We don't need them for any reason. It's the things the concepts represent that are sometimes needed.

I find concepts helpful.

And had nobody ever conceived of a god, we'd be just fine. Our science would be at least as advanced - probably more without the church's centuries long history of trying to impede the march of science. It is also in that sense that we have no need for a god concept.

You didn't counter my counter about your potential of a naturalistic explanation so I'll assume we're done with that.

Your words were, "Also, isn't it just as logical to say that everything that remains to be explained might be potentially explained by something other than a naturalistic explanation?"

Yes.

But that still doesn't change the fact that all known phenomena either already have a naturalistic explanation if they have been explained, or have naturalistic hypotheses that outcompete the supernaturalistic one in the sense that they can account for observable phenomena more parsimoniously than a god hypothesis.

It is in that sense that I mean, as Laplace told Napoleon after Laplace had explained his new model for celestial mechanics and Napoleon asked where God fit into his vision, that we have no need for that hypothesis. That didn't mean that a god wasn't involved in stabilizing the solar system - who could rule out that one wasn't nudging the planets back into orbits as Newton had surmised? - just that a god was not needed in that role, and inserting one would add unnecessary complexity in violation of Occam's Razor.

The multiverse hypothesis and the abiogenesis hypothesis are two such naturalisitic ideas. They don't need gods.

In summary: Gods cannot be ruled out any more than dragons, the idea of a god adds nothing to our understanding of nature, and there is the potential to explain it all without invoking gods.

If you disagree with any of that, please say what and why.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My point is that the concept detached from the thing it represents is useless. People pray to a god. They don't pray to its detached concept.

Among those who pray or prayed to Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, Odin, Allah, or Ahuru Mazda, most if not all are only praying to a concept.

And among those that name the same god, they each seem to have a different concept.

 

[Desert Snake]

Among those who pray or prayed to Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, Odin, Allah, or Ahuru Mazda, most if not all are only praying to a concept.

And among those that name the same god, they each seem to have a different concept.

It is the concept, that differentiates the deity.

 

[Desert Snake]

A "false idol", is not necessarily real. To the worshipper, it is real, however.