Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?

[Nakosis]

Interesting. Then where do their morals come from, and what makes their morals moral ?

Genetics, experience, culture. If you support the group, generally the group does better. Actions that are detrimental to the group become immoral.

Problems come when we create divisions among folks. Political parties, religion, gender, nationality, any time it becomes us vs them. If you're not part of the group then you're not cover by the group morality. We exclude folks from the group, it becomes ok to bully or pick on them.

If you become part of a group then the group will become supportive of you. They'll over look your faults as long as your actions don't cross the line of the groups morality.

Jews and Muslims are the same group until religion divided them. Folks who see us as all members of the same group, humanity, will likely be the most supportive of the largest number of people.

 

[Nakosis]

You seem to support dawkins in that there is no such thing as objective morality, just genetic drives for survival. Then why do you use the term moral ? That is a term that makes a judgement about good and bad, but those are also terms you don't believe in. Using the term moral once again, you say it can only be created by the entity who has it. You will have to explain that comment a little more, it doesn't make any sense. I don't own the moon, but I can describe it and know what it is.

Objective morality would be unbiased support for at least every human being, perhaps every living thing.
Good is being supportive of your fellow man. Bad is actions that are detrimental to your fellow man.
This is because we know in supporting the group, the group will support us.

 

[shmogie]

Objective morality would be unbiased support for at least every human being, perhaps every living thing.
Good is being supportive of your fellow man. Bad is actions that are detrimental to your fellow man.
This is because we know in supporting the group, the group will support us.

No, I don't think so. Morality isn;t a support mechanism, it is right behavior, right having been defined by someone and accepted by others. The same for good and bad. By your definition, I would be "right" in using whatever force required to stop a fellow human from destroying himself by smoking, is that a moral action ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what complete and utter twaddle. Your reasoning ability has deteriorated much since I gave op on you. Yep, you are a true disciple of those loopy spokesman for the new atheism, hitchens, dawkins et.al. Like them you use unreasoned ignorance and hyperbole instead of actual logic, exegesis, and historical fact. No, I am not re engaging you, this is simply a total blather alert.

So you're going to be withholding your much prized attention again, but thought you'd take the time to make another personal attack first, and then scurry off again?

OK. LOL.

Nice rebuttal, by the way.

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

 

[Nakosis]

No, I don't think so. Morality isn;t a support mechanism, it is right behavior, right having been defined by someone and accepted by others. The same for good and bad. By your definition, I would be "right" in using whatever force required to stop a fellow human from destroying himself by smoking, is that a moral action ?

Seems to be what we are working towards. Making it harder and harder to smoke. There's conflicting group morals, freedom vs health. We value personal freedom more than health atm. That may change. Using whatever force is necessary maybe we also see as also detrimental to the group. However taxing it, running anti-smoking ads, restricting it's use, apparently these are seen as an acceptable use of force.

What's an acceptable use of force against another member causing themselves harm? Through experience we find out what works.

 

[shmogie]

So you're going to be withholding your much prized attention again, but thought you'd take the time to make another personal attack first, and then scurry off again?

OK. LOL.

Nice rebuttal, by the way.

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

f you are

So you're going to be withholding your much prized attention again, but thought you'd take the time to make another personal attack first, and then scurry off again?

OK. LOL.

Nice rebuttal, by the way.

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

IF you are truly interested in a rebuttal to the new atheist hysteria and barrage of accusation re the God of the OT, I would urge you to read "IS GOD A MORAL TYRANT" by Copan. I doubt you will, but there it is


OK. LOL.

Nice rebuttal, by the way.

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe[/QUOTE]

 

[Augustus]

Problems come when we create divisions among folks.

We can't help but make divisions among folk, it is how our brain functions. Making divisions among folk is an inescapable aspect of human society. Our identity is founded just as much on who we are not, as it is on who we are.

Folks who see us as all members of the same group, humanity, will likely be the most supportive of the largest number of people.

There's no such thing as Humanity though, just people with differing, an often incompatible needs and wants. Wanting it to exist in any meaningful way won't ever make it so. I'm pretty sure there are large sections of 'Humanity' who you think the world would be much better off without.

In groups and out groups is just what we do as a species, the way our brains evolved. For all our conceit, we are still just animals and the nature of out society is limited by our inherited methods of cognition.

 

[Willamena]

We can't help but make divisions among folk, it is how our brain functions. Making divisions among folk is an inescapable aspect of human society. Our identity is founded just as much on who we are not, as it is on who we are.

I don't believe that, I think it's just popular.

There's no such thing as Humanity though, just people with differing, an often incompatible needs and wants. Wanting it to exist in any meaningful way won't ever make it so. I'm pretty sure there are large sections of 'Humanity' who you think the world would be much better off without.

In groups and out groups is just what we do as a species, the way our brains evolved. For all our conceit, we are still just animals and the nature of out society is limited by our inherited methods of cognition.

What is the difference between Humanity and people with differing and often incompatible needs/wants?

 

[Augustus]

I don't believe that, I think it's just popular.

What makes you believe that?

What is the difference between Humanity and people with differing and often incompatible needs/wants?

I don't see people with mutually incompatible interests, goals and ways of life being part of any meaningful group. If everything you value is everything I hate, we are not part of the same group.

There isn't an equivalent of Humanity for any other animal; we don't talk of Porcinity or Caninity. Just because animals share the same species doesn't mean they share anything beyond that.

 

[Willamena]

What makes you believe that?

The incidence of bonding together.

I don't see people with mutually incompatible interests, goals and ways of life being part of any meaningful group. If everything you value is everything I hate, we are not part of the same group.

And yet, RF persists.

There isn't an equivalent of Humanity for any other animal; we don't talk of Porcinity or Caninity. Just because animals share the same species doesn't mean they share anything beyond that.

Humanity is unique. In my youth I pursued an interest in astrology, and it taught me that we each are microcosms of the whole that is humanity. There is no aspect of humanity that we (each) are not capable of touching upon in our lives.

Pigs and dogs differ because they don't hold the high regard that we do for the things that humanity creates, namely abstracts. They are capable of understanding abstracts, but we have taken them to a level unique in the animal-form kingdom. We consider the abstract division, for instance, to be a concrete real-world thing. That's what makes us special, although it's not definitive of Humanity.

 

[Augustus]

The incidence of bonding together.

How does the idea that humans can bond lead to the idea that we can all be some big happy family with no one on the outside of this group?

And yet, RF persists.

Because what one person posts on RF doesn't limit what another person can post on RF.

When one person advocates that society should be governed by a Wahabbi form of Sharia and anything else is an abomination, there is no way they can reach a mutually beneficial agreement with a Humanist other than creating separate societies where one's needs don't overlap with the other's.

It's not a question of how we can stop in/out groups developing, but how people can exist peacefully in the same world as those we don't like.

Pigs and dogs differ because they don't hold the high regard that we do for the things that humanity creates, namely abstracts. They are capable of understanding abstracts, but we have taken them to a level unique in the animal-form kingdom. We consider the abstract division, for instance, to be a concrete real-world thing. That's what makes us special, although it's not definitive of Humanity.

But these narratives we create lead us to view the world from very different, and incompatible, perspectives. This will never change.

For as long as we view the world through the lens of narrative, we are bound to create groups of those we identify with and groups of those we do not.

 

[Augustus]

The incidence of bonding together.

How does the idea that humans can bond lead to the idea that we can all be some big happy family with no one on the outside of this group?

And yet, RF persists.

Because what one person posts on RF doesn't limit what another person can post on RF.

When one person advocates that society should be governed by a Wahabbi form of Sharia and anything else is an abomination, there is no way they can reach a mutually beneficial agreement with a Humanist other than creating separate societies where one's needs don't overlap with the other's.

It's not a question of how we can stop in/out groups developing, but how people can exist peacefully in the same world as those we don't like.

Pigs and dogs differ because they don't hold the high regard that we do for the things that humanity creates, namely abstracts. They are capable of understanding abstracts, but we have taken them to a level unique in the animal-form kingdom. We consider the abstract division, for instance, to be a concrete real-world thing. That's what makes us special, although it's not definitive of Humanity.

But these narratives we create lead us to view the world from very different, and incompatible, perspectives. This will never change.

For as long as we view the world through the lens of narrative, we are bound to create groups of those we identify with and groups of those we do not.

 

[Willamena]

How does the idea that humans can bond lead to the idea that we can all be some big happy family with no one on the outside of this group?

It probably doesn't, but I was arguing against the inevitability of the divisions as part of a "human nature." Since both bonding and divisions occur, it belies that either is inevitable. The popularity of these ideas in groups is a more likely scenario.

Because what one person posts on RF doesn't limit what another person can post on RF.

When one person advocates that society should be governed by a Wahabbi form of Sharia and anything else is an abomination, there is no way they can reach a mutually beneficial agreement with a Humanist other than creating separate societies where one's needs don't overlap with the other's.

It's not a question of how we can stop in/out groups developing, but how people can exist peacefully in the same world as those we don't like.

But they do exist peacefully, as well as argue. You painted a picture of RF above, and we are the demonstration of the principle.

But these narratives we create lead us to view the world from very different, and incompatible, perspectives. This will never change.

For as long as we view the world through the lens of narrative, we are bound to create groups of those we identify with and groups of those we do not.

I believe that characterizing those perspectives as "incompatible" is seeing only one side of the coin.

 

[Willamena]

This may be off topic, but I think morality generally fails when we isolate a particular action, behavior or belief and apply our moral principles to it. Morality is a "bigger picture" thing of a myriad of variables that can influence any given picture at any given moment, from any given individual or group's perspective, and the principles we derive, the standards that we will hold ourselves and our actions to--standards that are, by definition, objective--are going to fail, every time, when we redirect them from the whole picture to any particular part of the picture. They aren't made for the parts.

(Dang, I need to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Seems to be what we are working towards. Making it harder and harder to smoke. There's conflicting group morals, freedom vs health. We value personal freedom more than health atm. That may change. Using whatever force is necessary maybe we also see as also detrimental to the group. However taxing it, running anti-smoking ads, restricting it's use, apparently these are seen as an acceptable use of force.

What's an acceptable use of force against another member causing themselves harm? Through experience we find out what works.

The argument for taxing cigarettes, limiting their sales and advertising, and limiting where they can be smoked includes protecting children, second hand exposure health risks, and recovering public health expenditures caused by smoking.

The war on drugs is ostensibly to protect people from themselves, but this effort seems more to protect nonsmokers, an idea supported by the fact that it has never been illegal to buy cigarettes. You're free to smoke, but you are asked to do so responsibly, meaning on your dollar and in places that protect the well-being of others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IF you are truly interested in a rebuttal to the new atheist hysteria and barrage of accusation re the God of the OT, I would urge you to read "IS GOD A MORAL TYRANT" by Copan. I doubt you will, but there it is

Why would I read that book? If you've read it, and you think it addresses my point, you can make the rebuttal yourself. In about as many words as I made my case. We're debating a morality issue. We're comparing humanist values to God's, which I take to mean the god of the Christian Bible.

I claimed at Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's? that that god was arguably the greatest enemy to mankind in all of history and fiction. I provided a long list of the offenses against man attributed to it and suggested other characters from history and fiction as relative standards.

Then I provided another person's viewpoint in a quote, who also found fault in the apparent morals this same god, who is said to be omniscient, omnipotent god that lets gratuitous suffering occur.

You chose to express your objection to seeing your god described that way, but no rebuttal. I understand, which is why I made a reference to blasphemy. I realize that you consider such opinions an affront to your beliefs. But if it causes you that degree of distress, perhaps you shouldn't be on a thread dedicated to that discussion.

In any event, unbelievers read this account of an angry, petty, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadistic, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission, and commands genocides, rape, slavery, infanticide, and more as already outlined, and then tell us that that is love, kindness, and justice, and represents the pinnacle of morality.

You're bound to get contradictory opinion or two along the way, don't ya think?

This is the point where the believer begins claiming that the unbeliever is trying to destroy his religion, or hates his god, or is angry or ranting hysterically. Your words were, "the new atheist hysteria and barrage of accusation."

Sorry, but the church apparently has its adherents living in a bubble outside of which you wouldn't dream of calling that a good god. Imagine reading a description of Loki or Satan doing those exact same things, and then being told that these were the qualities and acts of a loving god. Why don't you consider Allah a good and loving god?

I'll read your rebuttal if you have one, but not your book recommendation. I can pretty much guess what it contains without reading it - assorted examples of where unbelievers misunderstand scriptures that depict the god of the Bible unflatteringly, and how they really should be understood. What else could it be?

That's what Christian apologetics is for - defending the faith from criticism however valid that criticism may be. And it's written for you, the believer, not me, the skeptic.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment. According to God, I, as a kind and respectful human being, am a corrupt individual worthy of condemnation since I do not believe in this God and do not serve my life to him. This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be? In which case, if this God is real, then he would not be an all loving, all just, and perfectly righteous being. Therefore, as for those types of Christians who claim that God's moral standard is perfectly righteous, how do you know? The idea that he had his son sacrificed isn't enough to justify his claimed perfect righteousness because anyone can make a sacrifice for you. But that doesn't make them a perfectly righteous person.

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

I follow a philosophy similar to Humanism. I have also been taught sections of the Bible. No one moral standard will be right for everyone. In my view, an all righteous God is like having a perfect relationship- it doesn't really happen except in movies. And even then everyone's view of "perfect" will differ, possibly greatly. The beauty of the world can be found in the little flaws. Some Christians will insist that all flaws are bad, but in my view only flaws that harm are evil. Some flaws can be used for bad but they aren't bad in themselves. This applies to all philosophies.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that humans have to have thousands of rules, regulations and laws to ensure hey do the right thing makes me wonder if human morality is all that it claims. Humans have a propensity for corruption. It's not about the morals but the state of heart. A person or society can have all the good intentions in the world but in the end will still not live up to their moral ideals. That is why we have the have nots even though the haves say that they care and society should be equal. Money corrupts, power corrupts and gets in under the skin and takes hold.

 

[Segev Moran]

You seem to support dawkins in that there is no such thing as objective morality,

of course. how can there be an Objective moral?
Even for the sake of argument, God did create moral, It is not objective, it is subjective to God.

just genetic drives for survival.

That's not what Dawkins says
But in a way, yes, we humans (as any other specie we have ever seen) are motivated mainly by the will to survive.
The problem stars with uneducated people who think that "survival of the fit" means survival of the strong... which is obviously far from the truth (especially in our millennia).

Then why do you use the term moral ? That is a term that makes a judgement about good and bad, but those are also terms you don't believe in.

Why do I need to believe in them?
It will be like asking if you believe is Imagination?

Using the term moral once again, you say it can only be created by the entity who has it.

No. I Say it nothing but a way for humans to describe something they consider as a good behavior.

You will have to explain that comment a little more, it doesn't make any sense. I don't own the moon, but I can describe it and know what it is.

Ok.
Lets ask it in a different way.
What created Moral?

 

[shmogie]

of course. how can there be an Objective moral?
Even for the sake of argument, God did create moral, It is not objective, it is subjective to God.

That's not what Dawkins says
But in a way, yes, we humans (as any other specie we have ever seen) are motivated mainly by the will to survive.
The problem stars with uneducated people who think that "survival of the fit" means survival of the strong... which is obviously far from the truth (especially in our millennia).

Why do I need to believe in them?
It will be like asking if you believe is Imagination?

No. I Say it nothing but a way for humans to describe something they consider as a good behavior.

Ok.
Lets ask it in a different way.
What created Moral?

Dawkins says that all human behavior is based on the genetic drives in each of us. If you think he doesn't, then you need to go back and reread him. To Dawkins, there is no morality or right and wrong, only things labeled thus which actually exist to provide survival, and survival alone. His famous statement is, "we dance to our genes". To Dawkins, rape is just the genetic driven male to mate, but rape is "wrong" because it is ultimately detrimental to society, which is a genetic construct for survival. I have asked other new atheists this question, with no answer, I'll try you. What if that frustrated male dancing to his genes uses a date rape drug, render the object of his drive unconscious. What if then he is very careful that she not get pregnant, not get a disease, or be harmed in any way, before he rapes her. So then she doesn't know what happened, has no harm from the experience in any form, and his dance to his genes has been fulfilled, thus making it perfectly acceptable, right ? If not, tell me why not.