Morality: Do you agree

[Eli G]

Well, God has something much better for us. Jesus showed what the kingdom of God will bring to humanity:

1) no more hunger
2) not more violence
3) no more illnesses

... not even more death. Is it not better that what men can try to do by themselves?
God has the power, and the will to do it. He have promised he will:

Rev. 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Is it not wonderful!!!!

 

[Polymath257]

Hehehe. You are an idealist. Be real. There is a cure for most illnesses. But they are not accesible to poor people.

Yes, that is another social problem. But before there was no hope at all for most diseases. And in spite of this, things are better now than before.

Until fairly recently, a tooth abscess was likely to be fatal. Antibiotics changed that (not prayer).

 

[vulcanlogician]

*exasperated sigh*

 

[AppieB]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

I don't believe in objective morality, meaning: a mind independent standard of right and wrong. That doesn't mean one can not have a foundation of morality. On the contrary. It's just means that the foundation self is subjective.

My foundation of morality is the value of well being of sentient beings that can experience pain and pleausure (for example: humans). My goal is to enhance well being, not jus for me but also for my family and friends and the rest of society. It turns out that most people have this goal (I've never met someone who didn't value human well being).
From there one we can make objective assessments whether somehting is moral right or moral wrong.

There is no problem for me to say that murder or rape a person is morally wrong. I'm not a moral relativist. It's doesn't depend on the culture or the time. It depends on my view of morality.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I know there is no god, so how can i know what doesn't exist.

Challenge accepted every person i know who believes in god will describe god differently, its one of the reasons (there are many others) why i say there is no gof

So let me get this straight, and i will use an illustration to explain...

You are a detective, dozens of witnesses (hundreds actually) come to you describing an event that occurred but their recounts vary. You are going to deny the event simply because the witnesses all have variations in their statements?

A smart detective would recognise the event is very likely true, and that research is needed to determine the exact nature of said event. That research would look genuinely at a range of sources, logic, history, physical evidence to determine the nature of the event. When you do that, you find that the biblical account is very consistent and supported historically with thousands of years of uncorrupted written statements

There is no way rationalise a claim that the writings of the bible are a fabrication...in part because the dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus among many hundreds of other ancient texts support this claim, and in part because they [the writings] are so consistent.

 

[AppieB]

But if someone thinks that all morality boils down to subjectivity, they should be careful about what they say. Somebody beating the crap out of his wife because she didn't have dinner on time cannot be wrong in any kind of objective sense to them. So moral relativists should be careful to point out in such cases that there is nothing wrong with such an act. They should say something like "such an act does not suit my preferences."

But often times, so-called moral relativists express moral outrage at things like that. By their own worldview, they shouldn't do that.

Not believing in objective morality (see my previous post for definition), doesn't mean morality is 'just an opinion' or that you have to be a moral relativist.
I can certainly be "outraged" of something I consider to be immoral.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, God has something much better for us. Jesus showed what the kingdom of God will bring to humanity:

1) no more hunger
2) not more violence
3) no more illnesses

... not even more death. Is it not better that what men can try to do by themselves?
God has the power, and the will to do it. He have promised he will:

Rev. 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Is it not wonderful!!!!

Yes, I am aware of your belief system. I just find it to be unbelievable.

Promises made by a fictional character (which I believe deities to be) have no weight in my beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does God have to follow His own rules?

No, because the rules are for humans. God does not follow anyone or anything since He is at the top of the totem pole.

 

[Eli G]

Yes, that is another social problem. But before there was no hope at all for most diseases. And in spite of this, things are better now than before.

Until fairly recently, a tooth abscess was likely to be fatal. Antibiotics changed that (not prayer).

Men won't solve human problems. No matter how many good intentions exist ... Not the knowledge, not the power, not the support, they are uncapable on fighting the other side: the dark side of humanity, and a long etc.

On top of that, science is just a means to achieve things that can help us, but it doesn't belong to atheists. Don't talk like believers are enemies of science ...

Be real.

 

[Polymath257]

So let me get this straight, and i will use an illustration to explain...

You are a detective, dozens of witnesses (hundreds actually) come to you describing an event that occurred but their recounts vary. You are going to deny the event simply because the witnesses all have variations in their statements?

A smart detective would recognise the event is very likely true, and that research is needed to determine the exact nature of said event. That research would look genuinely at a range of sources, logic, history, physical evidence to determine the nature of the event.

I would believe *an* event happened, but be skeptical of all the reports.

And, if the event was that many people saw something that was otherwise impossible, I would be inclined to doubt them and look for a different explanation (mass hypnosis, psychedelics in the water, etc).

If, instead, I had conflicting reports from people that were not at the event and were written long after the event, I might even doubt an event happened at all.

 

[AppieB]

So if objective morality doesn't exist, your moral opinion as a person is valid or to be taken seriously when calling another person immoral? That is his claim, that without objective morality, your moral judgement is simply your opinion and therefore in sense invalid.

It is not so simplistic as you let is seem. If they both have the same foundation of morality, then it would not be invalid. It certainly would not invalid to people who have the same foundation.

 

[Eli G]

Yes, I am aware of your belief system. I just find it to be unbelievable.

Promises made by a fictional character (which I believe deities to be) have no weight in my beliefs.

Ok, I respect your opinion.

I believe that men are not gods, and I won't wait from them what they can not give.

 

[osgart]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

Objective morality is not based on God, and subjective morality is immorality and blindness to the obvious truth of objective morality.

Morality is virtues vs. vices, qualities of character vs. lack of character qualities. Immorality is discovered by way of reasoning out what constitutes murder, rape, harm and abuse of character, life, relationship, body, trust, deserve, and well being. Morality is discovered by recognizing virtuous character; there are about 100 or so character qualities that exist in reality that benefit life and relationship.

Nature has no moral foundation. Yet because there are relationships and character traits that living creatures can possess there are foundations of morality.

Anywhere there is life there is the necessity of objective morality. If there is no God, there still exists foundational objective morality so long as you have living creatures that relate to self and others.

 

[Polymath257]

Men won't solve human problems. No matter how many good intentions exist ... Not the knowledge, not the power, not the support, they are uncapable on fighting the other side: the dark side of humanity, and a long etc.

On top of that, science is just a means to achieve things that can help us, but it doesn't belong to atheists. Don't talk like believers are enemies of science ...

Be real.

Well, I disagree. ONLY people can solve human problems.

Science does not belong to atheists, but many advances have been rejected by many for religious reasons. From believing the Earth is the center of the universe, to rejecting evolution, to rejecting vaccinations, religion has often (not always) been on the side rejecting scientific assistance.

 

[ChristineM]

So let me get this straight, and i will use an illustration to explain...

You are a detective, dozens of witnesses (hundreds actually) come to you describing an event that occurred but their recounts vary. You are going to deny the event simply because the witnesses all have variations in their statements?

A smart detective would recognise the event is very likely true, and that research is needed to determine the exact nature of said event. That research would look genuinely at a range of sources, logic, history, physical evidence to determine the nature of the event.

When you don't get a coherent description you cannot take that description to court.

A smart detective would say, I'm wasting my time here, no one has a clue.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I respect your opinion.

I believe that men are not gods, and I won't wait from them what they can not give.

I don't believe men are gods either. And even if we cannot solve problems completely, we can help to make things better over time. Waiting for a deity to intervene just means nothing gets done.

 

[AppieB]

Just because there is a law or a rule, that doesn't imply a law giver. We have natural laws in science. We also have laws of logic. We discover these laws (or rules) via inquiries into math and science. Some might postulate that the same sort of discoveries might be made from our inquiries into ethics.

There is a difference between descriptive laws (like the laws of nature, logic) and prescriptive laws (like moral laws or legal laws). The latter is what you ought to do. Those can not be mind independent.

 

[Eli G]

@Polymath257 That is your opinion. It requieres more faith than what is needed from the believers. It requieres to believe that men can know all and can do whatever, and there is no other way to know truth or being save of the problems humans themselves brought to the rest of the world.

There is more that you and your sect of we-can-by-ourselves.

 

[Eli G]

Well, I disagree. ONLY people can solve human problems.

Science does not belong to atheists, but many advances have been rejected by many for religious reasons. From believing the Earth is the center of the universe, to rejecting evolution, to rejecting vaccinations, religion has often (not always) been on the side rejecting scientific assistance.

That is your opinion. It requieres more faith than what is need from the believers. It requieres to believe that men can know all and can do whatever, and there is no other way to know truth or being saved of the problems humans themselves brought to the rest of the world.

There is more that you and your sect of we-can-by-ourselves.

Last post added.

 

[Polymath257]

That is your opinion. It requieres more faith than what is need from the believers. It requieres to believe that men can know all and can do whatever, and there is no other way to know truth or being save of the problems humans themselves brought to the rest of the world.

There is more that you and your sect of we-can-by-ourselves.

I disagree. We don't have to know everything in order to know something. We don't have to solve every problem to make things better.

The track record is that we can do better if we learn how the world works, learn how to cooperate, and learn how to care about others.

All too often, religion stands in the way of those goals.

Back to the OP, the essence of morality is human well being. Moral actions are those pointed to making things better over time, helping others, caring for others, and being willing to think about the consequences of our actions. Belief in deities tends to hinder these things.

I consider faith to be an evil. It is a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. In more detail, someone who always follows what they believe a deity tells them to is much more likely to go out and kill those who disagree with them. That make this type of religious faith dangerous.