Theists, please tell me why you believe murder is wrong.

[dybmh]

Absolutely. I practice responsible ritualism. I am aware of the risks of consorting with the demonic devine. I would let this other person know as well.

Is there a way to be sure they understand those risks? And how are you able to know all the risks? It's an absolutley true axiom: No one knows what they don't know. I'm not sure anyone can provide informed consent for any sort of ritual. Can you help me understand that?

 

[dybmh]

If that's true, moral actions are the same as saying, "what god commands". Correct? I mean, you place the qualifier:

But why would god want such a thing?

And if morals are just what god commands, then morals have nothing to do with human experience.

Thoughts?

Omnibenevolence.

That means not only does God want to do good for creation, creation must include multiple others and they are granted benevolence from it such that each and every "thing" that exists is capable of nurturing each other.

So, omnibenevolence is not just God nurturing creation; it is God granting that omnibenevolence to each thing so that they can share it. But because the material world is imperfect, morality is needed. Morality are the rules which produce the cooperative sympathic feedback loop of benevolence (nurturing) between everyone and everything that exists.

Because God chooses to be omnibenevolent, others must exist to be nurtured, but not just 1 other, but plural others. That is why. That is the reason for "creation". It is "the will to bestow."

 

[EconGuy]

Omnibenevolence.

That means not only does God want to do good for creation, creation must include multiple others and they are granted benevolence from it such that each and every "thing" that exists is capable of nurturing each other.

So, omnibenevolence is not just God nurturing creation; it is God granting that omnibenevolence to each thing so that they can share it. But because the material world is imperfect, morality is needed. Morality are the rules which produce the cooperative sympathic feedback loop of benevolence (nurturing) between everyone and everything that exists.

Because God chooses to be omnibenevolent, others must exist to be nurtured, but not just 1 other, but plural others. That is why. That is the reason for "creation". It is "the will to bestow."

With respect, that sounds like stuff you or someone else made up to rationalize a belief in a god as god cannot be demonstrated to be the source of anything you just said.

The problem of all this rationalization is, even if it leads to good for most of the people that accept it, it is corrupt at it's core. Not morally corrupt mind you, but demonstrably corrupt. I believe you believe the things you say. I have no reason to believe you aren't a good person with good intentions. But these are ideas meant to espouse the good sit on rotten foundation of rationalization and justifications.

Why? Simple, if you cannot demonstrate the truth of your claims, then anyone can make similar claims some of which you and I might not be good, but using the same justifications that you do will rationalize their bad behavior as good in the eyes of god which leads, inexorably, the flaw of belief in morally based on faith.

 

[F1fan]

Oh c'mon now, I'm sure you can do better than this.

What is it that makes a killing unjustified? Why is any killing unjustified? What is the moral basis for that determination?

I suggest the legal code is a good resource. First world nations have put a lot of work into what the consequences are for those whose behavior leads to another dying. But it is far from perfect.

I think morals can be a weak measure. Morals often drag a lot of personal emotions and can miss certain elements. As I noted I've lost many cycling friends over the years due to drunk drivers, and one inattentive drivers. A few years ago Glenda Taylor of Topeka, KS was warming up for the Kansas State Time Trial near Wichita, KS and she was struck from behind by a driver who was trying to squeeze between her on a bike and an oncoming car. The driver hit her at about 50 mph, and she died at the scene. His fault. He was convicted and got only 60 days in jail.

Man convicted of killing Washburn professor Glenda Taylor in crash receives 60 days in jail

GIRARD — A Chanute man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Washburn University art teacher and administrator Glenda Taylor, along with Taylor’s family and friends, remained somber as C…

www.cjonline.com

To my mind this isn't justice.

 

[dybmh]

With respect, that sounds like stuff you or someone else made up to rationalize a belief in a god as god cannot be demonstrated to be the source of anything you just said.

The problem of all this rationalization is, even if it leads to good for most of the people that accept it, it is corrupt at it's core. Not morally corrupt mind you, but demonstrably corrupt. I believe you believe the things you say. I have no reason to believe you aren't a good person with good intentions. But these are ideas meant to espouse the good sit on rotten foundation of rationalization and justifications.

Why? Simple, if you cannot demonstrate the truth of your claims, then anyone can make similar claims some of which you and I might not be good, but using the same justifications that you do will rationalize their bad behavior as good in the eyes of god which leads, inexorably, the flaw of belief in morally based on faith.

Thank you for the kind reply. Sincerely. I don't need proof, personally, I have faith. Earlier I wrote that there are many other theological concepts in polytheistic belief systems which are popular with people who are asking the questions you are asking. Do you recall? Just in case it needs saying, I have no intentions to "recruit you". ( I just threw-up a little in my mouth, kidding ). Judaism does not recruit. If you are not Jewish, you are not invited. But I was trying to answer your questions as honestly and correctly as possible. That said, I have no motive to rationalize.

Judaism is devoted to a very specific God, Judaism has specific rules, Judaism has very specific ways. As I said, there is only one way that an absolutely infinite God can create a reality which includes material multiplicity. It 100% must choose to be omnibenevolent. That's all. It cannot be malevolent, it cannot be deist. This is a consequence of its, magnitude, for lack of better word. But other polytheist systems have their own way, and from what I've heard they make a lot of sense.

What I'm saying about God ( captial G ) is supremely logical, but, if it turns you off, no problem. It works and it is true. If God is absolutely infinte, it must be omnibenvolent. I can explain it, I've done so in the past succesfully. Atheists balk because their desires interfere with their brains. But it's not too complicated. I'm confident you could understand it if you chose to apply yourself to it.

But there are many other paths a person can follow, or create their own. I think the most important moral principle above all is simply do no harm. Who can argue with that?

I'm here and happy to answer your questions from a Jewish perspective, if you choose to offer them. If you are specifically interested in my input, feel free to tag me, it's @dybmh.

 

[Valjean]

1.Could god say that murder is good? If not, why?

"God's will" has always been problematic. Different religions, different wills. Even within a religion, interpretations vary. Moreover, many gods aren't thought of as lawmakers and judges. That's an Abrahamic thing.

Murder is illegal homicide. Laws, customs and justifications vary, and they're constantly changing.
In most cases local law and custom seem to take precedence over a strict reading of religious text. Abrahamic religions all condemn murder and killing except for crime, yet how many millions have been killed by Abrahamics squabbling over territory, power, resources, money or proper belief, over the past couple of millennia?

Religious conservatives in the US are up in arms over the killing of a local fœtus, but think it proper, and even honorable, to drop bombs on towns and civilians in an overseas war over oil, bananas or military bases.
Aren't fœtuses killed in wars and nation-building? Save proximity or 'team' affiliation, what's the difference?

The biblical God delights in the killing of innocents, particularly the OT version, who's both aggressive and capricious, He shows little regard for fairness or the sanctity of human life, IMHO.

 

[Valjean]

Without trying to sound pedantic, I think you mean a moral code that you personally support. Moral codes aren't personal (that is ethics), moral codes are right and wrong in the context of 2 or more people, whereas ethics are about personal behavior.

What would it mean to be moral if you were the only person?

I'd hold the same values. Be kind. Avoid causing pain or suffering, avoid causing harm.

 

[Valjean]

And yet, "atheists" ( not apatheists ) love to argue with us. I wonder what they would do with out us? Probably set up an altar and start a religion. Take it on the road and start preaching it.

LOL! You're being silly.
We only argue when we're presented a theistic claim to comment on. Apart from websites like RF, the subject never comes up. None of my friends have any notion of my religious or non-religious views.
Without theists to argue with, we'd live normal lives, pursuing our own interests. God vs no God would come up about as often as pink unicorns vs no pink unicorns.

 

[dybmh]

using the same justifications that you do will rationalize their bad behavior as good in the eyes of god which leads, inexorably, the flaw of belief in morally based on faith.

Yes-and-no... again. Sure people can justify whatever they want at any time. All they need to do is lift themself up as a god. Poof, everything and anything is legal and good according that self-deity.

But, the model I'm describing has a real justice system built in which identifies the root causes of evil actions and punishes them when an individual engages in them, while at the same accepts that people are not perfect and applies forebearance appropriately. This is not "scripture" based. This is all a logical consequence of God's absolute infinity. It does not take "faith" to realize its truth.

 

[dybmh]

LOL! You're being silly.
We only argue when we're presented a theistic claim to comment on. Apart from websites like RF, the subject never comes up. None of my friends have any notion of my religious or non-religious views.
Without theists to argue with, we'd live normal lives, pursuing our own interests. God vs no God would come up about as often as pink unicorns vs no pink unicorns.

Why do you comment on the theistic claims?

 

[Valjean]

We have a local atheist group that kinda did that. They didn't build an altar, but they started proposing that they make invocations at City Counsel meetings. Our city accepted this without issue... until the cameras all showed up, and they realized it was a big publicity stunt. Other cities in the area just opted to stop doing prayers/invocations at all rather than host these people. I had a few personal run ins with them; not good. They do actively work to proselytize.

However, in my time on RF, I've rubbed elbows with much nicer atheists, and realized I just happened to run across a group of turds locally, and they're not a representative of all(or the majority of) atheists. Should I stumble across someone who reminds me of the members of that group, I generally just don't converse with them. Those types don't seem to want to converse, but rather relieve frustration at some wound their area's dominant religion has inflicted upon them. I feel like I'm wasting my time when I engage in those circumstances.

This sounds more like a political move than a religious one, probably an analogous proposal to illustrate the problems with the religious proposals to insinuate religion into government or secular institutions.

This is a political group that just happens to be atheist, making a political point to a group not used to acting on abstract principal or seeing the broader ramifications of their proposals.

 

[JustGeorge]

This sounds more like a political move than a religious one, probably an analogous proposal to illustrate the problems with the religious proposals to insinuate religion into government or secular institutions.

This is a political group that just happens to be atheist, making a political point to a group not used to acting on abstract principal or seeing the broader ramifications of their proposals.

I think the leader just really, really liked the lime light on himself.

There were a few that I think generally fell into the category you mention, but there were a few that genuinely enjoyed the attention they were getting. There were quite a few bullies in there as well.

As an outsider, I saw no difference in their behavior or presentation than some of the more feisty Christian groups in the area.

 

[Brian2]

Now, to be clear I know murder is wrong, but I'm curious the reason.

I also know they Bible says murder is wrong, but can someone tell me if that's the root of the reason that you (the theist) believe that it's wrong to murder?

-Cheers

Apart from the fact that God said not to murder, I would not like to be murdered and so would not do it to others. So that's empathy and the golden rule.

 

[Valjean]

Yes-and-no... again. Sure people can justify whatever they want at any time. All they need to do is lift themself up as a god. Poof, everything and anything is legal and good according that self-deity.

I think it's less arrogation than an appeal to the consistent application of universal, abstract principles.

But, the model I'm describing has a real justice system built in which identifies the root causes of evil actions and punishes them when an individual engages in them, while at the same accepts that people are not perfect and applies forebearance appropriately. This is not "scripture" based. This is all a logical consequence of God's absolute infinity. It does not take "faith" to realize its truth.

I don't see Abrahamic justice as based on principle. It's a deontologic appeal to divine will; more divine command than reasoned or principle-based.. Moreover, as illustrated in the Bible, it's capricious and ambiguous.

 

[dybmh]

I think it's less arrogation than an appeal to the consistent application of universal, abstract principles.

I don't know what you mean? Would you please give a little more context, and maybe rephrase?

I don't see Abrahamic justice as based on principle. It's a deontologic appeal to divine will; more divine command than reasoned or principle-based.. Moreover, as illustrated in the Bible, it's capricious and ambiguous.

I am offering a non-scriptural model which has only 1 presumption. God is absolutely infinite. Everything follows from that. Justice is established, God must be omnibenevolent. Nothing else works.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you comment on the theistic claims?

Because they're epistemically unfounded yet have widespread political ramifications, affecting us all.
We're being helpful.

 

[dybmh]

Because they're epistemically unfounded yet have widespread political ramifications, affecting us all.

It's political. Do you actually think attacking someone's religion does 1 single good thing to resolve the political divide in America. Or is it just put-downs to puff up a politically liberal ego?

I'm a bleeding heart liberal by the way. But this political, "I'm gunna attack those Crazy Christains" is probably the dumbest plan anyone has ever come up with. Total. Stupidity. Makes stuff worse.

 

[F1fan]

I think I'd get bored being an atheist, but I have to respect the opinions of atheists and agnostics that find religion to be dreadfully dull.

Does this mean your religious belief is a form of entertainment for you?

Being an atheist is like not having a truck. If you don't need a truck and have a vehicle that does work for you, do you miss not having a truck? No.

We're all put together very differently, so what appeals to one may not appeal to all.

The ongoing question atheists have is why theists are attracted to the frameworks they believe in.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what you mean? Would you please give a little more context, and maybe rephrase?

Arrogation is to claim without warrant or presumptuously; to assume or appropriate to oneself without right.
The freethinkers are not arrogant, they are principled. They base their actions on the consistent application of abstract, universal principles.

I am offering a non-scriptural model which has only 1 presumption. God is absolutely infinite. Everything follows from that. Justice is established, God must be omnibenevolent. Nothing else works.

So I question your major premise. It's objectively unevidenced; empirically unfounded.
I also question the validity of your conclusion. Omnibenevolence doesn't follow from the existence of an infinite god.

Can you diagram your reasoning?

 

[Valjean]

It's political. Do you actually think attacking someone's religion does 1 single good thing to resolve the political divide in America. Or is it just put-downs to puff up a politically liberal ego?

Is pointing out a factual or logical error an attack, or assistance?
Scientists and intellectuals expect and welcome criticisms of their ideas. They value truth, and welcome assistance correcting flaws in their reasoning.
Are the religious not interested in truth?

I'm a bleeding heart liberal by the way. But this political, "I'm gunna attack those Crazy Christains" is probably the dumbest plan anyone has ever come up with. Total. Stupidity. Makes stuff worse.

But who's attacking Christians? We just point out logical or factual flaws in their reasoning, in an effort to assist them in their ontological quest.
Why do you interpret this as an attack?