Something Recently Occurred To Me

[Insanity personified]

I go to a christian high school, filled with christian teenagers (barf) who often say some very stupid christian-related things

 

one of these people is my Theology teacher (the school requires 4 years of a religion class to graduate). While not a teenager, this man has a...shall we say less than lucid understanding of the laws of logic. One of his pet arguments against atheism is that without a god to provide moral absolutes.....well I think you all know where this is going

 

that got me to thinking...if morality must be handed down from some higher being in order to be moral, then where does god get his moral compass from? why is something "moral" just because it comes from god. Doesn't pinning our moralistic tendencies on god simply beg the question. I.E it doesn't explain WHY said action is actually moral to begin with...it simply (attempts to) affirm where said tendencies come from

 

how is god's moral compass any better than ours? does he just DECIDE for the hell of it which actions he feels are moral and which aren't...and if so, how is obeying him any less satisfying than moral relativism? because unless god derives his standard of morality from somewhere else, wouldn't that make him a moral relativist?

 

 

 

 

I hope I've made sense...these are just rambling thoughts of mine, and if you know how an apologist would respond to what I just said, please tell me. I'm interested in how this would be justifiable

[Jedah]

http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=331

 

Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe...

 

The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question.

 

To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it.

 

The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experiance or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come accross must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place.

 

Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls.

 

First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective.

 

Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step.

 

This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much watter is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross.

 

 

In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because thats what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective.

 

If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But thats just me.

 

In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent.

[Insanity personified]

http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=331

 

Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe...

 

The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question.

 

To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it.

 

The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experiance or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come accross must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place.

 

Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls.

 

First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective.

 

Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step.

 

This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much watter is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross.

 

 

In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because thats what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective.

 

If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But thats just me.

 

In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent.

 

nice! you can find some pretty smart people on anime forums.

 

how do you think an apologist would respond?

[Jedah]

how do you think an apologist would respond?

 

I've tried using it against an apologist before. They don't respond to it at all. It basically flies way over their head.

 

The only response I got to it that indicated any sign of comprehension was "Saying their are no absolutes is a self defeating statement." Which of course, showed that he didn't really understand it at all since Edgewalker isn't saying that their are no absolutes, just that they are meaningless to us as subjective beings even if they do exist.

[Variable]

What's interesting about the whole "moral absolutes" thing is the Christian God breaks his own laws all the time. He drowns and kills innocent babies. Something to think about in the context of the whole abortion debate. He's "jealous" and "takes vengeance on his enemies", both of which are vices. He's assigns blame for transgressions to people that had nothing to do with the transgression. Think, killing King David's son and all the first born in Egypt. He beats his wife. He tells everyone to love each other like brothers, but then condones slavery as a "legitimate institution". He's polygamous. Well anyway......I just think it's interesting

[Eric_PK]

I go to a christian high school, filled with christian teenagers (barf) who often say some very stupid christian-related things

 

one of these people is my Theology teacher (the school requires 4 years of a religion class to graduate). While not a teenager, this man has a...shall we say less than lucid understanding of the laws of logic. One of his pet arguments against atheism is that without a god to provide moral absolutes.....well I think you all know where this is going

 

that got me to thinking...if morality must be handed down from some higher being in order to be moral, then where does god get his moral compass from? why is something "moral" just because it comes from god. Doesn't pinning our moralistic tendencies on god simply beg the question. I.E it doesn't explain WHY said action is actually moral to begin with...it simply (attempts to) affirm where said tendencies come from

 

how is god's moral compass any better than ours? does he just DECIDE for the hell of it which actions he feels are moral and which aren't...and if so, how is obeying him any less satisfying than moral relativism? because unless god derives his standard of morality from somewhere else, wouldn't that make him a moral relativist?

 

 

 

 

I hope I've made sense...these are just rambling thoughts of mine, and if you know how an apologist would respond to what I just said, please tell me. I'm interested in how this would be justifiable

 

The apologist argument is that what god says is by definition morality, so there's no conflict. Then you get into the whole "the lord works in mysterious ways, who are you to judge god, etc." thing.

[par4dcourse]

Morality is just a set of ideas that promote evolution. Follow: 1. It made sense not to kill your pack-mates to promote increasing numbers and survival. 2. Stealing anothers posessions leads to number one. 3. Banging the neighbor's wife also leads to number one. Most of the commandments (except the ones featuring the sky daddy) just make good survival of the fittest sense.

It is also my conclusion that with the problems religions face among their own, child abuse, theft, gossip, inter-faith division, greedy pastors, etc., xians aren't afraid of atheists so much as they're afraid of what their own would become without the eternal threat from said sky daddy.

[Robbobrob]

The apologist argument is that what god says is by definition morality, so there's no conflict. Then you get into the whole "the lord works in mysterious ways, who are you to judge god, etc." thing.

Which always irks the heck out of me...I mean if god is not moral enough to pass muster on my pathetic moral scale, how can God even think it is a true universal deity......taking sides is the first indication that a deity is not universal.

[PaulQ]

The apologist argument is that what god says is by definition morality, so there's no conflict. Then you get into the whole "the lord works in mysterious ways, who are you to judge god, etc." thing.

Which always irks the heck out of me...I mean if god is not moral enough to pass muster on my pathetic moral scale, how can God even think it is a true universal deity......taking sides is the first indication that a deity is not universal.

 

In fact, the bible itself suggests that there are other gods. Take, for instance, the first commandment:

 

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

 

Note that it doesn't say that there are no other gods; rather, quite the opposite. It suggests that there are, in fact, other gods, and that you can have these gods in your life, as long as you don't have them before him.

[Insanity personified]

The apologist argument is that what god says is by definition morality, so there's no conflict. Then you get into the whole "the lord works in mysterious ways, who are you to judge god, etc." thing.

Which always irks the heck out of me...I mean if god is not moral enough to pass muster on my pathetic moral scale, how can God even think it is a true universal deity......taking sides is the first indication that a deity is not universal.

 

I love it when apologists use the phrase "by definition ______"

 

because it violates a fairly basic law of debate, if THEY get to say "by definition _____" then I could just counter with "by definition...". For example, god is eternal by definition and thus needs no creator, why can't the same be said about the universe?......if they insist that their assumption is somehow different from yours, while neither have been independently validated, that's called "Special Pleading". I find that most christian apologetics are mostly special pleading with strawmen thrown in where they think an Atheist or Agnostic would answer a certain way

[PocketAces]

I go to a christian high school, filled with christian teenagers (barf) who often say some very stupid christian-related things

 

one of these people is my Theology teacher (the school requires 4 years of a religion class to graduate). While not a teenager, this man has a...shall we say less than lucid understanding of the laws of logic. One of his pet arguments against atheism is that without a god to provide moral absolutes.....well I think you all know where this is going

 

that got me to thinking...if morality must be handed down from some higher being in order to be moral, then where does god get his moral compass from? why is something "moral" just because it comes from god. Doesn't pinning our moralistic tendencies on god simply beg the question. I.E it doesn't explain WHY said action is actually moral to begin with...it simply (attempts to) affirm where said tendencies come from

 

how is god's moral compass any better than ours? does he just DECIDE for the hell of it which actions he feels are moral and which aren't...and if so, how is obeying him any less satisfying than moral relativism? because unless god derives his standard of morality from somewhere else, wouldn't that make him a moral relativist?

 

 

 

 

I hope I've made sense...these are just rambling thoughts of mine, and if you know how an apologist would respond to what I just said, please tell me. I'm interested in how this would be justifiable

i could only speculate how a Christian would respond but here is what i speculate:

quote scriptures of God's holiness and all-powerfulness, thus automatically assuming that anything that comes from something holy, must be good morals. when all it seems to me is some being saying i'm all-powerful, i'm holy, here is what i want you to do, do it. let's no forget, that this god is also defined as a jealous god, so why would the Christian question the supposed "absolute morals" given from this "being"?

[R. S. Martin]

Thou shalt not covet.

 

I am a jealous God.

 

Both are supposedly written in stone in the Ten Commandments.

 

Yes, you heard right.

 

Talk about living above the law.

 

That's the guy with the so-called power to cast all of us into a fire pit and turn on the BBQ forever.

 

I found some excellent resources online arguing intelligent design. It rips all the fundy arguments to shreds. I'm probably light-years behind everyone else but in my mind, it shreds any possibility for this guy's existence to shreds, too. Some of the world's best scientists are speaking and there is much online for free. I tried organizing some of the info here with links to other sites. With the Big Guy in the Cosmic Shredder, I think we're free to live morally.

 

Insanity Personified, your OP makes sense to me. I know the line of argument of your so-called teacher but it's the type of nonsense that needs to be shredded. I don't know how and that's the problem. The fact that top scientists around the world take so much time out of their busy schedules to fight ID in court cases and to put videos online to educate the public tells me this fight is for real and people are going out of their way to make the Truth available for those with "eyes to see and ears to hear."

[agnosticator]

Of course, in reality we base our ethics upon reason, emotion (empathy and compassion), and the makeup of human beings.

 

But we are mere clay in the Potter's hands, so whatever god says, goes (down the crapper)!

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

how do you think an apologist would respond?

 

I've tried using it against an apologist before. They don't respond to it at all. It basically flies way over their head.

 

The only response I got to it that indicated any sign of comprehension was "Saying their are no absolutes is a self defeating statement." Which of course, showed that he didn't really understand it at all since Edgewalker isn't saying that their are no absolutes, just that they are meaningless to us as subjective beings even if they do exist.

 

I think one of the best ways to talk to these people would be to start with a question and insist that they answer and not jump the gun:

 

So if you jumped off headfirst an eight story building with no obstructions and a hard concrete blacktop to welcome you on landing would you say you would be killed?

 

A:

 

Yes.

 

Would you say that knowing that jumping headfirst off an eight story building will result in your death might deter you from doing so if you were inclined to commit suicide but were not sure?

 

A:

 

Yes

 

Well then now we have this absolute law at play here called the "law of gravity". That's not so unreasonable of a law now is it?

 

A:

 

Why of course not!

 

But you see now we have evidence that this law exists and while it is absolute it doesn't contain certain expressions of certainty that your contentions of absolute morality contains wouldn't you say so?

 

A:

 

Of course!

 

So then, please provide me with evidence that these moral absolutes exist.

 

 

Since the people who are arguing this cannot do so (other than to try to play linguistic merry-go-round by claiming "God said so"), I would then end the discussion at that point by pointing out to them that they have no evidence and that therefore there is no reason for me to believe anything that's coming out of their mouth regarding this topic. If they get really snotty it might not hurt to ask for absolute evidence of absolute morality. If they get even more riled then one could merely end it by informing them that their argument is absolutely absurd, but your not quite sure how....

[Phaceless]

I tend to think the belief in moral-absolute-ism results in stuff like suicide bombings in the name of righteousness and holiness...

 

or from a Christian point of view,

the justification of the eternal hell burning of non beleivers to illustrate and manifest Gods supposed Moral Absolutes.

 

how do we know good is good and bad is bad without human judgement?

people worship their god because they humanly judge god to be good who does good things

christians hate the devil because he is humanly judged to be bad who does bad things.

Its still human based- moral standard, otherwise you never know if your worshiping the devil or not.

no one would follow their god, if that god promised bad things to all who worshiped him correctly.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

I tend to think the belief in moral-absolute-ism results in stuff like suicide bombings in the name of righteousness and holiness...

 

or from a Christian point of view,

the justification of the eternal hell burning of non beleivers to illustrate and manifest Gods supposed Moral Absolutes.

 

how do we know good is good and bad is bad without human judgement?

people worship their god because they humanly judge god to be good who does good things

christians hate the devil because he is humanly judged to be bad who does bad things.

Its still human based- moral standard, otherwise you never know if your worshiping the devil or not.

no one would follow their god, if that god promised bad things to all who worshiped him correctly.

 

 

Well would you rather suicide bombers or an underground dungeon where you were tortured for possessing illegal copies of the Holy Scriptures written in the vernacular?

 

I dunno about you but I would rather the suicide bombers end my existence. The one thing no christian seems to understand is that the only real reason the conservative portion of them cannot torture other people is because they live in a first class country that currently has laws recognizing separation of powers. Seeing as how there is no Christian Theocracy currently in existence I think my point is made. IIRC the last time there was a true Christian theocracy in place there was an Inquisition replete with horrors that would make anything coming out of the S&M movement looks silly.

 

The self fulfilling prophecy known as the "72 virgins" and "martyrdom" makes it's presence felt in the real world through suicide bombings, and the self fulfilling prophecy known as "Hell" makes itself known in the dungeon chambers of the Inquisition. It's not really complicated, in my opinion anyway. All Christian dogmas have real life equivalents, think about it.

[AKR]

I go to a christian high school, filled with christian teenagers (barf) who often say some very stupid christian-related things

 

one of these people is my Theology teacher (the school requires 4 years of a religion class to graduate). While not a teenager, this man has a...shall we say less than lucid understanding of the laws of logic. One of his pet arguments against atheism is that without a god to provide moral absolutes.....well I think you all know where this is going

 

that got me to thinking...if morality must be handed down from some higher being in order to be moral, then where does god get his moral compass from? why is something "moral" just because it comes from god. Doesn't pinning our moralistic tendencies on god simply beg the question. I.E it doesn't explain WHY said action is actually moral to begin with...it simply (attempts to) affirm where said tendencies come from

 

how is god's moral compass any better than ours? does he just DECIDE for the hell of it which actions he feels are moral and which aren't...and if so, how is obeying him any less satisfying than moral relativism? because unless god derives his standard of morality from somewhere else, wouldn't that make him a moral relativist?

 

 

 

 

I hope I've made sense...these are just rambling thoughts of mine, and if you know how an apologist would respond to what I just said, please tell me. I'm interested in how this would be justifiable

 

 

Your teacher is assuming "might equals right." Just because this supposed god is more powerful than us doesn't make him right. As you said, why does being god make him right? If I go out and create to entities and give them consciousness, can I tell one to beat the living shit out of the other, and I'm right? How they feel doesn't mean anything? Once you create a conscious being and give it feelings, you are now responsible for the care of that being. Why should you get to treat it like your property and take no consideration of it's feelings? Why do YOU get to say what's right?

 

 

I think you should tear his argument wide open with some questions. Ask him if he would skin a friend alive and eat their skin in front of them if god said to. If he says "god wouldn't do that," then say, "then god has his limits and morality doesn't come from him."

 

If he says he would do it, then point out that he really has no morals - only orders. That will really piss all the Christians off. It's true. If you simply do what god says is right, and he is the ultimate moral authority, morals are whatever he wants them to be at any given moment.

 

 

Furthermore, Atheists do just fine without absolute morality and so do other cultures with "false gods." Animal societies have morals as well; every social group has morals and no social group can survive without one. If no one follows any type of rules, that species can't work together. They will separate, as no one can trust other members because they're always killing and stealing resources. This means they're less likely to succeed individually and as a species, because when you have a social group, you can help each other look out for enemies, pool resources, hunt larger/faster prey and so on. You also have a larger gene pool for breeding. Various animals have a sense of shame as well as a sense of altruism. Some will risk their lives to save others.

 

 

Atheists are quite underrepresented in the prison system. He can argue until he's blue in the face, but the fact is that plenty of Atheists and people of other religions believe in the "golden rule," and things like that. It is not unique to Christianity. Furthermore, his morality argument is not an argument against Atheism. He and millions of others wrongly assume that because they think they've found a problem that there MUST exist a solution, and that solution MUST be god. It's like saying, "well, if I were poor, that would really suck, so I must not be poor. I must have a billion dollars in my bank account!" This doesn't create a billion dollars or prove that it's in anyone's bank account.

 

Also, I think you should ask him if he wouldn't have a problem with murdering, raping, or stealing from people if god didn't tell him it was wrong. Christians don't realize that when they pull this morality argument, they are making themselves out to be the frightening people who have no sense of morality. They are dependent on being told by god if they should go kill their neighbor or not, or if they should rape the check out lady at the grocery store. When they say "Atheists don't know right from wrong without god," what they're really saying is, "Christians don't care about rape and murder unless god says we should." I'd like to see the look on his face if you ask him this. Unless he accepts that he has his own sense of morality, then he is stuck looking like a sociopath who could care less about the feelings of others, and he holds no respect for life.