P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t know what this means.
- Status
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Which implies that you don’t automatically get a moral system out of there being a creator- you need to take an additional leap. So, I propose, it’s patently unfair to expect an atheist to invent a moral system that doesn’t involve any leaps of it’s own.
So if you want a purely secular moral system, utilitarianism seems like a good start. I’m not professing it as “the” moral system, but it seems quite clear that theistic belief systems aren’t significantly better at making moral rules.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
A creator? No.
God? Yes. Absolutely you do.
.
I agree that without God, utilitarianism is as good a model for morality as you’re going to get.
That’s a pretty dismal and dark type of morality, and I tremble to think of a world in which the majority rules the minority.
The inherent dignity of the individual is absolutely vanquished.
Love plays no role.
I shudder.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Oh? Let’s say I believe in your god but think he’s a bit of a jerk and don’t much care for his rules (I suspect giving examples of why one might not care for the Christian god, in both testaments, might be against the rules so I’ll refrain). There’s nothing untenable about this position, fundamentally- accepting the existence of an all powerful being doesn’t mean you have to like him/her. Thus, the moral rules the creator chooses aren’t automatically objectively true, even for those that except his existence.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I would reject that god just like you. I wouldn’t worship a god that’s a jerk.
That seems pretty logical, don’t you think?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Then clearly you don’t get a moral system, automatically, without any additional assumptions.Well, I would reject that god just like you. I wouldn’t worship a god that’s a jerk.
That seems pretty logical, don’t you think?
If there’s a creator, you then ask “Do I like the creator”, which means you need some standard for whether or not the creator is a good guy. This system must be created out of whole cloth and different people can come to different conclusions- it’s subjective. Therefore, the existence of a spiritual overlord does not give you an objective moral code.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Er…yep. We are agreed here.
Has there been anyone here who has proposed that you “get a moral system, automatically, without any additional assumptions”?
But the existence of God does.
Creator, in this context, is not synonymous with God.
God, in this context, is the God of the Philosophers–as Anselm so pithily said–God is He who no greater can be thought.
So creator? Nope.
God? Absolutely, yes.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
In order for there to be an objective moral system from a religion, it has to be the case.
How so? I said I might accept the existence of your god, but still believe that he’s a mean god not worth worshiping. You seemed to accept that someone could hold this position. Thus, a person could accept the existence of your god but still not find themselves accepting your moral system. Thus, the existence of your god does not imply the correctness of the rules he makes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Sorry…you lost me. I have no idea what you are arguing here.
I reject the god that you reject, AnimalSpirits.
Nope.
If you believe in a god who’s a big meanie, then we both reject this god. He doesn’t exist.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
You’re telling me it’s completely impossible for there to be an all powerful being that isn’t super nice? So a universe with a god that’s a bit of a jerk sometimes is 100% logically impossible?
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not sure that this works. God, according to Christians, is love itself. As PR says, no greater can be imagined (although I would seriously doubt the ability of your average Christian to quote Anselm or to even know who he might have been). Nevertheless, unless the particular Christian has specifically selected God on the basis that she happens to agree with what He has decided is be used as a moral framework, then stony ground awaits.
The process appears to always be: This is my God therefore what He says is True. Not: What God says is True, therefore He is my God. As an atheist, it is common for me to listen to any number of people when it comes to difficult moral decisions. As a Christian, what God says automatically trumps everything. Unless…
Well, unless you disagree with Him. When you listen to what you are supposed to be doing and then make a personal, conscious decision that what He says is wrong. Either that or you agree that He is right but decide it isn’t applicable to you personally (contraception and abortion are good examples).
Now if this isn’t what you could call a relative morality, then I don’t know what is.
So what we have is a significant number of Christians deciding themselves what constitutes right and wrong as far as they are concerned. But they don’t have to decide if God is the good guy. Ask every one of them and they will say yes. He is Love itself! You cannot have a society based on anything other than what He has decreed! Well, except where it is not personally applicable…
So it is an undoubted fact, an undeniable, cast iron certainty, that Christians (and quite possibly the majority of Christians) work out their own morality in certain circumstances and reject whatever their church, or their scripture, or their religious leaders are telling them is God’s will.
The question as to whether they are making the correct decisions is open to debate. Which is always the way it should be. Because it is quite frankly a little rich to say that everyone else is not allowed any (name removed by moderator)ut when there has obviously been an internal debate in every case where any given Christian makes a personal decision.
The question is not how an atheist might formulate a morality when he doesn’t believe in God. The question is what process does a Christian go through when he or she formulates their own morality when they disregard God.
Maybe then we can do a comparison and see if one method is better than the other.
I
inocente
Guest
Do religious moderates slaughter journalists as did religious fanatics yesterday in Paris?It would seem that anyone to the right of you is a religious fanatic.
How is that not hateful?
And I don’t believe for a moment that you have a humble opinion about conservatives.
I
inocente
Guest
On a thread in the morality forum with regular Catholic posters, there wasn’t a sliver of daylight between their position and utilitarianism. They all said the German Constitution is stupid because it forbids shooting down an airliner in a 9/11 situation as that ignores the dignity of the innocent passengers. Not one of them owned to any moral absolutes. They all said that as it’s the lesser of two evils to shoot down the plane, that means it isn’t evil!
Even after I pointed out that Evangelium Vitae says “The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end” they still maintained that JPII didn’t really mean that, shooting the missile wasn’t deliberate, or it couldn’t possibly be evil, or some other unwritten get-out clause!
There used to be moral absolutists posters on CAF, but if there are any left they didn’t come near that thread. Sadly, in practice it seems many religious people just duck and dive to end up at what ever morality they like best.
And Germany, the only state to question the morality, is a secular state of course.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How 'bout you offer some arguments for the existence of this all powerful being that isn’t “super good”?
(Let’s dismiss the “super nice” part because that’s not how philosophers have defined God. Parents shouldn’t aim to be “super nice”. But they should aim to be “super good”. Why? Because we model ourselves on God).
P
Paradoxical
Guest
Bradski, Christians have created their god in their own image and likeness. They cannot and do not worship a God whom they do not agree with. It’s impossible. Ask any one of them here what they don’t like about God, and you will get silence. Christianity is a theoretical religion, and allows the alleged adherents to act holier than thou by holding up what they interpret the bible to mean with regards to morals, and when you get someone to feel guilty over something like homosexuality or masturbation, you have control over that person if he buys into your belief system. In a nutshell, religion is all about power and control, and the individuals who preach it are seeking validation from their imagined God and power over individuals who do not think like they do. As we see, humans kill other humans in the name of their God construct. Just yesterday, 12 innocent humans were massacred. Fortunately today the Christians just try to do it with thought control.
I
inocente
Guest
Yes it’s impossible. If God is all powerful then he’s perfect (or he would be less than all powerful). That means God never changes, since any change would make him less or more perfect. So your “sometimes” is illogical.
In turn, as God is all powerful, ultimately everything depends on him. He has no dependencies, so he cares naught for whatever you think is super nice. “I am who I am".
*I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
- Isaiah 45*
P
Paradoxical
Guest
This is translated to mean that this imagined God of Christianity will not stop cancer, stroke, heart attacks, starvation, children dying, or anything else.
Hmm, kinda like he aint there. Isn’t that conveeeennnnient for Christian theology? Something good happens…it was God. Millions starve to death in Africa or a loved one dies from the ravages of cancer…it is God’s will. Didn’t the Muslims who just killed 12 people shout the same phrase when they massacred them?
I
inocente
Guest
Correct. Or are you living in fairyland?
My wife died of cancer eleven months ago. As for your attempt to link the billions of people who believe in a deity with what happened yesterday, go wash your mouth. I’ve had a bellyful of all extremists, including self-righteous holier-than-thou atheist variants.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
For the sake of clarity, some one might make a moral judgement and make a decision [to act] that is incompatible with their judgement. Ex: Mary finds a wallet with cash in it. Mary decides the the most moral set of actions that she can do is contact the person whose information is in the wallet and return it. Mary instead decides to take the cash from the wallet and then turn it in. Mary’s assessment of her actions are that she could have made a more moral decision, but Mary decides not to correct what she has done.ThinkingSapien:
Wait…what???
You gave examples of people who made moral judgements that are incompatible with their [moral] judgement?
That is a gaga, lala, nonsensical statement.
This was also explained in #113 of the previous thread and continuing on to how people can develop morality without or irrespective to religions.
- Status