Subjective Morality: A Case In Point

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site.  It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey.  I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos.

 

Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective.  Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process.  In which case, not everything is subjective (oops).

 

Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword.  Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated.  It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity.

 

Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East.  We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there.  With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT.

I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now.

 

1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith?

 

Thanks,

 

Because I can see that if someone lies to me it either hurts me or makes me angry.  From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others. 

 

I can see that if someone robs me, I lose things that are valuable and am inconvenienced.  From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal from others. 

 

I can see that if someone beats me half to death, I am in pain and will incur medical expenses and maybe even sustain injuries that affect me the rest of my life.  From this information, I can extrapolate that kicking people's shit in should only be done when they really deserve it.

 

Are you starting to see a pattern here?  It doesn't require a single pico-Liter of faith to simply, as you would put it, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Which, incidentally, is what Schindler did for the Jews.

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

Thank you for reinforcing my point.  Because I may not know what would be best for another, I use what is best for me to extrapolate what might be best.  And, generally, the outcome is positive.

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

 

Goodbye Prof... you're on ignore too..?

[Guest end3]

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Dude, you should listen to Jesus.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

Kind of ironic how the 'sinners' get it but these fundies are clueless.

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

[Guest end3]

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

[mikey101]

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

 

Are you in contact with everyone in the world? Neither am I.  We only have the people around us.  

 

Those people.. treat them how you want to be treated.  It's really simple.  Jesus is not talking about rocket science here.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

Of course I'm not assuming my moral compass is good for everyone.  That's what christians do, not atheists.  What I'm assuming is that if I don't want somebody else doing it to me, then I shouldn't do it to someone else.  And it's not so much an assumption as it is an highly educated guess based upon years of observation of human behavior.

[Guest end3]

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

Are you in contact with everyone in the world? Neither am I.  We only have the people in our sphere of influence.  

 

Those people.. treat them how you want to be treated.  It's really simple.  Jesus is not talking about rocket science here.

 

And treating them the way we wish to be treated doesn't make it objectively true because there are a myriad of influences on the individual. Our feelings are not objectively true unless we can objectively define those feelings. Hence faith.

[Guest end3]

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Of course I'm not assuming my moral compass is good for everyone.  That's what christians do, not atheists.  What I'm assuming is that if I don't want somebody else doing it to me, then I shouldn't do it to someone else.  And it's not so much an assumption as it is an highly educated guess based upon years of observation of human behavior.

 

Ha, analytical hogwash....bovine excrement as you say.

[bornagainathiest]

If faith is necessary for making moral decisions how did humanity survive before the OT was written?

 

If faith is necessary for making moral decisions why was the Good Samaritan good without being a xian?

 

Humanity did not exist before the OT was written.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

Actually, his words were "Forgive them for they know not what they do."  He wasn't asking that they be forgiven for not knowing, but for not knowing what they were doing. 

 

They crucified people all the time, so they actually did know what they were doing.  However, the creators of the christ myth wanted to emphasize that this was a special crucifixion. 

 

The implication of jesus' words was that they didn't know that what they were doing was killing god.

 

Using this as a catch-all phrase for moral, social, or subjective relationships is really missing the point the story is meant to convey.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Of course I'm not assuming my moral compass is good for everyone.  That's what christians do, not atheists.  What I'm assuming is that if I don't want somebody else doing it to me, then I shouldn't do it to someone else.  And it's not so much an assumption as it is an highly educated guess based upon years of observation of human behavior.

 

Ha, analytical hogwash....bovine excrement as you say.

 

 

Q.

Since both the Prof and End3 have called each other's arguments, bovine excrement... how shall we judge who has the truth?

 

A.

By comparing their words with their displayed morality.

 

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

Actually, his words were "Forgive them for they know not what they do."  He wasn't asking that they be forgiven for not knowing, but for not knowing what they were doing. 

 

They crucified people all the time, so they actually did know what they were doing.  However, the creators of the christ myth wanted to emphasize that this was a special crucifixion. 

 

The implication of jesus' words was that they didn't know that what they were doing was killing god.

 

Using this as a catch-all phrase for moral, social, or subjective relationships is really missing the point the story is meant to convey.

 

You are batting O for today Prof. You just spouted more subjectivity.

[mikey101]

 

And treating them the way we wish to be treated doesn't make it objectively true because there are a myriad of influences on the individual. Our feelings are not objectively true unless we can objectively define those feelings. Hence faith.

 

You're making it way more complicated than it is.  Do you like people treating you as lesser because you don't believe the same as they do?  No, then don't treat people like they need your religion and are sinners when they don't believe the same as you do.  You wouldn't like it, so don't do it to others.  Sorry if that goes against your beliefs in proselytizing, but it's basic morality 101.  

[midniterider]

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

[midniterider]

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

 

The bible contains no more wisdom than a Marvel comic book and should generally be ignored. imo. 

[Guest end3]

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Dude, you should listen to Jesus.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

Kind of ironic how the 'sinners' get it but these fundies are clueless.

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

 

 

We don't have to be omniscient.  We just need to have enough information to make a decision for the situation we are in at the time.  Usually that is sufficient.

 

 

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

Are you in contact with everyone in the world? Neither am I.  We only have the people in our sphere of influence.  

 

Those people.. treat them how you want to be treated.  It's really simple.  Jesus is not talking about rocket science here.

 

And treating them the way we wish to be treated doesn't make it objectively true because there are a myriad of influences on the individual. Our feelings are not objectively true unless we can objectively define those feelings. Hence faith.

 

 

You are conflating the Golden Rule with "objective truth" (whatever that is, btw).  Faith doesn't allow anyone to objectively define feelings, faith is the opposite of that.  Feelings/empathy are a key part of how we make moral decisions, along with logic.  Objectivity is needed when we are trying to determine the truth, or knowledge about something.

 

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Of course I'm not assuming my moral compass is good for everyone.  That's what christians do, not atheists.  What I'm assuming is that if I don't want somebody else doing it to me, then I shouldn't do it to someone else.  And it's not so much an assumption as it is an highly educated guess based upon years of observation of human behavior.

 

Ha, analytical hogwash....bovine excrement as you say.

 

 

Well that's constructive. /sarcasm

 

 

You are batting O for today Prof. You just spouted more subjectivity.

 

 

More childish potshots instead of admitting you're out of your depth.

[mikey101]

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just trying to get you to understand 'do unto others'.  I don't think I'll be successful, but I guess it doesn't hurt to try.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

 

No, you are just not understanding our comments, despite having things explained to you in several different ways, and always in ways that everyone else can understand.  Ever stop to think maybe your narrow viewpoint might be impeding your ability to understand?

[mikey101]

 

 

No, you are just not understanding our comments, despite having things explained to you in several different ways, and always in ways that everyone else can understand.  Ever stop to think maybe your narrow viewpoint might be impeding your ability to understand?

 

Many let unhealthy attachment to religious beliefs blind them to basic logic as well as empathy. There's really nothing we can do, it's like talking to a brick wall.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Of course I'm not assuming my moral compass is good for everyone.  That's what christians do, not atheists.  What I'm assuming is that if I don't want somebody else doing it to me, then I shouldn't do it to someone else.  And it's not so much an assumption as it is an highly educated guess based upon years of observation of human behavior.

 

Ha, analytical hogwash....bovine excrement as you say.

 

It certainly is discouraging to find you think so lowly of the golden rule.  Perhaps someday you'll realize the powerful truth behind it.  Nonetheless, like it or not, this is precisely how the majority of reasonable people guide their own behavior and interactions.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

Actually, his words were "Forgive them for they know not what they do."  He wasn't asking that they be forgiven for not knowing, but for not knowing what they were doing. 

 

They crucified people all the time, so they actually did know what they were doing.  However, the creators of the christ myth wanted to emphasize that this was a special crucifixion. 

 

The implication of jesus' words was that they didn't know that what they were doing was killing god.

 

Using this as a catch-all phrase for moral, social, or subjective relationships is really missing the point the story is meant to convey.

 

You are batting O for today Prof. You just spouted more subjectivity.

 

Naturally, when discussing a subjective fairy tale from a subjective book of myths, written by subjective men who had subjective social and political agendas, one does tend to be... what's the word?  Subjective.

 

Of course, my "subjectivity" doesn't come from years of theological research or anything (I mean, it's not like I went to christian schools from elementary through college).  No, I just made that shit up in my "subjective" mind.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

Finally, we can get this thread back to what it was meant to be.  End3 is arguing that we should be subject to, or subjects of, an Objective Standard, which he chooses to call jesus.

 

So, now that we're all back at square one, End3, if your Objective Standard (god, jesus, yahweh, the holy spirit) ordered genocide, would it be more moral to follow those orders or reject them and try to save as many lives as you could?

 

Before you answer, here's a little reminder:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/

 

7 pages of End3 saying we should commit genocide against the Muslims.

[midniterider]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

 

Neither Jesus nor the bible is a good source of morality.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

Finally, we can get this thread back to what it was meant to be.  End3 is arguing that we should be subject to, or subjects of, an Objective Standard, which he chooses to call jesus.

 

So, now that we're all back at square one, End3, if your Objective Standard (god, jesus, yahweh, the holy spirit) ordered genocide, would it be more moral to follow those orders or reject them and try to save as many lives as you could?

 

Before you answer, here's a little reminder:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/

 

7 pages of End3 saying we should commit genocide against the Muslims.

 

Total deflection of the conversation....we went from you know without a picoliter of faith to "well, your idea of morality sucks". You ready to move to the next paragraph or do you wish to "waller".

[bornagainathiest]

End3 wrote...

 

"Idiots!  Stupid shit!  That's a fucked up life [of yours] BAA.  Your conclusion is moronic. Antagonistic bitch!  Your whining ass position. Fuck you, BDP." 

.

.

.

His displayed morality betrays his own Biblical values...

 

(love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control)

 

...destroying any argument he might make for the god of the Bible.