I don't particularly want to sin...

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK... let's tackle the reasoning.

I am going to bypass the thought of "who instilled the reason that these are wrong -- was it instilled by a moral authority or did it just pop up in our conscience and who made my conscience" and come to the point. I say bypass those thoughts because it will take us too far and too wide.

You picked four easy peasy ones but let's look at a current flash point one.

Who determines what a marriage is?

Why don't you try answering the "easy peasy" ones first?



You said you were going to tackle the reasoning and then went off to do anything but that.

 

[Kenny]

It seemed a straightforward and clear response to the words you posted and to your implied subtext.
Ciao!

Maybe you just aren't clear enough to me. If you go back and look at the specific questions and maybe amplify your answer?

 

[Kenny]

Why don't you try answering the "easy peasy" ones first?



You said you were going to tackle the reasoning and then went off to do anything but that.

OK... I though it was implied when I said "easy peasy" but let me be more specific. Yes, you can come to that conclusion. I have said that atheist can have a measure of morality.

Now... can you answer mine?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK... I though it was implied when I said "easy peasy" but let me be more specific. Yes, you can come to that conclusion. I have said that atheist can have a measure of morality.

Now... can you answer mine?

???

You still have not addressed it at all.

I asked you if you can explain why those things are wrong, without having to resort to an appeal to some authority.

Why are those things wrong?
Try to answer the question. What reasoning would you apply? What would the argument(s) be like?
Which factors would you take under consideration in your judgement and why?

You said it was "easy peasy", so you shouldn't have any problems explaining it.
Once you do that, I'll be happy to move on.

 

[Kenny]

???

You still have not addressed it at all.

I asked you if you can explain why those things are wrong, without having to resort to an appeal to some authority.

Why are those things wrong?
Try to answer the question. What reasoning would you apply? What would the argument(s) be like?
Which factors would you take under consideration in your judgement and why?

You said it was "easy peasy", so you shouldn't have any problems explaining it.
Once you do that, I'll be happy to move on.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your request.

It violates the line of love. (Which is a spiritual principle but everyone can enjoin because it is universally understood)

Edited:

It violates "Love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[Link]

This is, of course, in counterpoint the thread "I just want to sin!!"

I offer up this question to those believers who honestly think that, without God, everything is permitted. That is, if you really do believe that dictum ("without God, everything is permitted"), then you must also admit that if you did not believe in God, and follow what you believe to be God's commands, you would not know right from wrong.

Really? Is that really true?

Make a case for me, anyone who really thinks that.

Imam Ali (a) is quoted to have said good God commands is such that even if God didn't command, it would be good to do for people who reason. And evil he forbids, is such that even if he didn't command it would be evil to do for people who reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It violates the line of love. (Which is a spiritual principle but everyone can enjoin because it is universally understood)

That is extremely vague and depends on how one defines those things. Also, heinous crimes are committed out of "love".

How about this for a rephrase, in case that is what you meant by it: it causes physical and mental harm. It's detrimental to well-being of the victims, their loved ones and by extension the well-being of society as a whole as it affects the sense of security?

How about that?

See, in my world, morality pertains to well-being of sentient creatures, humans in particular but not exclusively.


If you don't agree with my rephrase, then please expand on why not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is, of course, in counterpoint the thread "I just want to sin!!"

I offer up this question to those believers who honestly think that, without God, everything is permitted. That is, if you really do believe that dictum ("without God, everything is permitted"), then you must also admit that if you did not believe in God, and follow what you believe to be God's commands, you would not know right from wrong.

Really? Is that really true?

Make a case for me, anyone who really thinks that.

You can do whatever you want, anytime. There are consequences both on Earth and beyond. What's your point?

 

[ppp]

Maybe you just aren't clear enough to me. If you go back and look at the specific questions and maybe amplify your answer?

Sure.

But, doesn't that skirt the point? Take, for an example, the hot button of abortion of which I don't know what your position is and one's personal position isn't the issue but rather as an example.

You didn't state what you think the point is specifically, but from your previous posts I assume that you believe that the point of morality is to have an absolute answer on what is right action and what is wrong action. Correct me please if I misapprehend. I do not want to misrepresent you.

You then cite three of the hot button issue of the current day: where you ask "Who is right?", "who is right on what a marriage looks like?" and "Who decides what is moral and what isn't?"

At 6 months gestation some people would say it isn't a person and others would since it is viable because it fully thinks. If one's morality says it isn't and therefore the action of abortion doesn't affect another thinking being and yet for another it would be immoral.

Or, another hot button, someone is filthy rich and pays his employees well and takes care of their health issue. One persons morality would say "You are still too rich" which the other would say "my riches is none of your business" - who is right?

For that matter, who is right on what a marriage looks like? Who decides what is moral and what isn't?

IMHO, all of your questions, explicit and implied, boil down to the last: Who decides what is moral and what isn't? And my answer to that is that we do. It has always been us who decides. Sometimes we give reasons based on the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others. Some times we give reasons based on authorities such as traditions, laws, kings or gods. I do not think that authority can provide a moral foundation. Authority is an easy shortcut to justification of one's moral code; but a moral code is not morality.

While I am definitely not a big fan of Harris, I think that he is correct in that the subject of morality is about the well-being of thinking agents. And I agree with the ethological model where the morality of behavior can be measured, albeit roughly, through the metrics of empathy, equity, reciprocity and compassion.

So, yeah. It is we who have to work out what moral behavior is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Imam Ali (a) is quoted to have said good God commands is such that even if God didn't command, it would be good to do for people who reason. And evil he forbids, is such that even if he didn't command it would be evil to do for people who reason.

Then basically God is just being a dictionary?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can do whatever you want, anytime. There are consequences both on Earth and beyond. What's your point?

My point is I don't believe in a "beyond," and genuinely good people have no need of such threats of consequences.

Those who require such threats to behave well, I would not call genuinely good.

 

[Link]

Then basically God is just being a dictionary?

A reliable teacher and shows the reasoning and insights to why he commands and forbids things as well.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So the 9-11 hijackers were moral since they were following God's commands. The people who fought back on Flight 93 were sinners since they defied God's plan.

Of course that does not mean that societies values cannot be corrupted, or that a person cannot sear their conscience as with a branding iron so that it may become hardened to sin. Or that a person's conscience without the guide of God's word is going to be a reliable guide to what is right and wrong all the time.

How does a fallible human, like yourself, know when some idea is moral or not? And if their subjective interpretation of the bible is morally reliable? Give us the objective test in reality that you use.[/QUOTE]

If I called myself the king of England would you believe me? Just because terrorists say they are following God’s commands doesn’t mean they are. The Quran clearly forbids murder for those who have read it. A murderer has no connection with God whatsoever no matter what they say.

 

[Kenny]

Sure.


You didn't state what you think the point is specifically, but from your previous posts I assume that you believe that the point of morality is to have an absolute answer on what is right action and what is wrong action. Correct me please if I misapprehend. I do not want to misrepresent you.

You then cite three of the hot button issue of the current day: where you ask "Who is right?", "who is right on what a marriage looks like?" and "Who decides what is moral and what isn't?"






IMHO, all of your questions, explicit and implied, boil down to the last: Who decides what is moral and what isn't? And my answer to that is that we do. It has always been us who decides. Sometimes we give reasons based on the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others. Some times we give reasons based on authorities such as traditions, laws, kings or gods. I do not think that authority can provide a moral foundation. Authority is an easy shortcut to justification of one's moral code; but a moral code is not morality.

While I am definitely not a big fan of Harris, I think that he is correct in that the subject of morality is about the well-being of thinking agents. And I agree with the ethological model where the morality of behavior can be measured, albeit roughly, through the metrics of empathy, equity, reciprocity and compassion.

So, yeah. It is we who have to work out what moral behavior is.

My most heartfelt thanks. Now I see how you came to that conclusion and, for that matter, correctly.

To your answer, "And my answer to that is that we do. It has always been us who decides." is where we depart because we, as "us" fluctuate between what is immoral to then decide that it is moral after all which reminds me of what they said about eggs.

First, eggs are good for you. Then, eggs are not good, and after that it is good again.

No constant.

Obviously we will disagree... I simply believe that there is a constant and God is the constant deciding factor.

But enjoyed the exchange. - I think we have gone as far as we can on this one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is a difference between sociopaths and psychopaths, and I never claimed that sociopaths were demon-possesed. I did make a speculation on psychopaths.

Yes, you speculated about it. And I asked why we should speculate about attributing sociopathy or psychopathy to demonic possession, when we have no evidence for demons in the first place.

There would be nothing wrong with being robots if that is what God wanted us to be.

If we were all robots, then we would all do the right things and end up in Heaven forever with God. It seems to me a God who truly loved us would want that for us. It would be better for us AND for God.

He made beasts of the field, and flying creatures of the heavens governed by instinct, and many of them in their natural instinct are wiser than humankind in certain things.
But we were made in God's image, with that comes self-awareness, and freewill. As Jehovah himself says:

"The One who made the ear, can he not hear?
The One who formed the eye, can he not see?
The One correcting the nations, can he not reprove?
He is the One who imparts knowledge to people!"
-Psalm 94:9-10.

Claims not in evidence.

 

[ppp]

To your answer, "And my answer to that is that we do. It has always been us who decides." is where we depart because we, as "us" fluctuate between what is immoral to then decide that it is moral after all which reminds me of what they said about eggs.

I am not sure how the fact that we change our minds means that it is not us who decides.

Nor would the existence of a god change that fact

Obviously we will disagree... I simply believe that there is a constant and God is the constant deciding factor.

The religious - fluctuate - on their interpretation of their sacred texts from generation to generation. All of you do. If I were to pull devout individuals of your religious line out of history from the beginning of each century back to the year 500 CE and stuck you all in a room, I doubt that all 15 of you would come out alive. I am sure that half of you would come out bloody.

Ciao

 

[F1fan]

None of what has been quoted you from the healthy word of truth has failed. It has all come true and is reliable. You have not shown otherwise.

If what you are saying is that the bits from the Bible you quoted didn't fail, well, no, I can't prove that literature fails. What has failed is believers interpreting these texts to mean things in the real, modern world. Note that books don't do anything. People do things. How people behave is what we can examine, and if they fail to live credibly from what they believe then we can judge it a failure. Christians have a long history of moral failure as a group. Certain individuals has been successful, but as groups they have been disastrous. The Confederate South were Baptists. The Germans of the Nazi era were Lutheran and Catholic. The Catholic Church itself has a checkered moral past, with torture and fraud. Creationism is intellectual fraud yet Fundamentalists are pushing this unethical idea for profits, and ruining the lives of people who need to learn reputable science. Look at the massive fraud of televangelists, many going to prison.

Do you need more examples?

Just stating the obvious that people abuse their freewill which they have been given. Everyone is given the option to do what is right or wrong. All of your questions and reasoning doesn't change that. It just validifies that.

Yet I gave you examples of how the Bible isn't making many Christians good people. Why is that? Why couldn't the Bible be more clear?

 

[F1fan]

How does a fallible human, like yourself, know when some idea is moral or not? And if their subjective interpretation of the bible is morally reliable? Give us the objective test in reality that you use.​

If I called myself the king of England would you believe me? Just because terrorists say they are following God’s commands doesn’t mean they are.

Poor analogy since there is only one King of England. Believers in God? Billions of them. What is the test that one believer is right and others wrong? None. They all get to decide what their God says and commands. The question is: why aren't these religions putting more pressure on the believers to be moral, thoughtful, self-reflective, etc.? As it is Christianity and Islam allows their believers to believe anything they damn well please, and self-justify it, including murder.

The Quran clearly forbids murder for those who have read it. A murderer has no connection with God whatsoever no matter what they say.

Murder yes. But if you are waging war against God's enemies, then it is justified killing.

See how easy it is for a believer to evade moral concerns? Where's the God guiding these people? Why is it absent? If it allows anything then what purpose does it serve?

And I notice you had no objective test that I asked for above. You evading my request illustrates the huge flaw in Christian and Muslim religion. Anything goes. If you can get away with killing others, then it's moral. Of course that is secular law that is the guiding light, not any God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Humans were created with freewill in the likeness of God:

" Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."-Genesis 1:26.

The fact that we are able to contemplate eternity, unlike unreasoning animals, shows us that God has put eternity into our hearts:

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart."-Ecclesiastes 3:11.

We cannot see into the invisible realm where God resides and from whence the physical realm of existence came into being. But we can perceive it is there. The very fact that you are able to conceive of the notion of God is proof that he is real. Animals do not reason on god, they are not spiritual, they cannot peer into the unknown with their mind's eye, nor do they contemplate eternity. Things which we have been given. It takes a little contemplating to realize these simple truths. They are not complex or difficult to understand. That is why we are also told that to refuse to acknowledge a maker in the creation as we contemplate it is inexcusable in God's eyes. I imagine to him someone who ignores his existence is absurd. He is probably thinking, and rightly so, we should be thanking him for life and all that he has done for us:

"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."-Romans 1:20.

"You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”-Revelation 4:11.

"The very fact that you are able to conceive of the notion of God is proof that he is real" ... ?

Naaah. I can conceive of the notion of leprechauns as well but that is not proof that leprechauns are real.

Who cares if other animals "reason on God" or not? That's not evidence that God(s) is/are real either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Morality is a godly trait which humans display. Animals, unlike humans, are governed by instinct and thus cannot sin.

That morality is not restricted to humankind but comes from above we are told:

"You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy."-Leviticus 20:26.

Although Jehovah God declared his holiness to the nation of Israel, and mandated that they must remain holy does not mean it is restricted to them. Later in in the Christian Scriptures we are told:

"But like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all your conduct, for it is written: “You must be holy, because I am holy.”-1 Peter 1:15-16.

Holiness is being pure and clean, set apart to do God's will. So God has a standard of right and wrong. What is holy is pure, undefiled, unadulterated.

God cannot lie:

"And is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie."-Titus 1:2. And he hates a liar.

This morality comes from the heavenly throne of God. God sets the high clean moral standards of conduct of right and wrong, he holds himself to those standards and he expects all of his creation whom he created as free moral agents to also live up to his high degree of morality:

"Happy are those who wash their robes, so that they may have authority to go to the trees of life and that they may gain entrance into the city through its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.'"-Revelation 22:14-15.

This is the same God that condones slavery. This God doesn't sound like the "high clean moral standard" that you are declaring it to be.