Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Had A Thought About Miracles And I Want Some Comments


Guest Valk0010

Recommended Posts

If we define murder as "taking another's life without their consent", then yes, many societies have condoned murder.

 

I really think it's unlikely there's any objective source and/or absolute morality. I've studied quite a bit of history and have yet to find one moral imperitive that's consistent through all societies throughout time. Not one act that has been considered "taboo" by all.

 

If the law were truly "written in the heart's of men", why all the variability? Certainly we could argue some individuals are somehow "unbalanced" and don't hear their heart, but entire societies? Nearly every society ever?

 

It just seems too much variablity to indicate a single source.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • OrdinaryClay

    32

  • Shyone

    24

  • Snakefoot

    19

  • Ouroboros

    18

If we define murder as "taking another's life without their consent", then yes, many societies have condoned murder.

Can you name one such society?

 

I really think it's unlikely there's any objective source and/or absolute morality. I've studied quite a bit of history and have yet to find one moral imperitive that's consistent through all societies throughout time. Not one act that has been considered "taboo" by all.

 

If the law were truly "written in the heart's of men", why all the variability? Certainly we could argue some individuals are somehow "unbalanced" and don't hear their heart, but entire societies? Nearly every society ever?

 

It just seems too much variablity to indicate a single source.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

The objectivity of moral does not require complete uniformity. If here exists one moral value common then this allows for objective moral values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name one such society?

Certainly! Ours. I very much doubt that condemened criminals are often willing participants in their executions.

 

Want something a bit more clear cut? OK. In China, they used to practice exposure. This was were unwanted children (usually females) were left out to die under orchard trees.

 

Another? Rome - Gladiatorial events were the height of entertainment. Granted, most gladiator's didn't fight to the death (the cost would be far too high), but some did. They would also force criminals and/or slaves to act out plays in which the people that are killed, actually die.

 

The objectivity of moral does not require complete uniformity.

I never said complete uniformity would be the result. I said there was too much variablity to indicate an objective source.

 

If here exists one moral value common then this allows for objective moral values.

I'm not completely certain what you mean here. But I think you're saying that if there is one common moral value that would point to an objective source.

 

I would tentatively agree with this statement. The rub it that I've yet to find one and if we did, that objective source could certainly be something other than a supernatural entity (i.e. elvolutionary imparitive towards cooporation as a species).

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All cultures believe murder is wrong. The only cultural difference is in the rational used to define who is "them". The fact that different cultures define some "other groups" as being justifiable to murder does not invalidate the universal agreement that murder is wrong.

I knew that was coming!

 

Christians inevitably reduce "morality" to a single universal precept, and that one is a matter of self preservation.

 

Allowing murderers to commit murder without consequences would be the death of - everyone. Of course murder is wrong in all societies, but murder is not the totallity of morality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we define murder as "taking another's life without their consent", then yes, many societies have condoned murder.

Can you name one such society?

Now we will be travelling down the definition road where the Christian will define Murder as "killing that is against the law" which is a tautology.

 

Since the law changes depending upon the societies moral values, the definition automatically changes as well.

 

And there go the "objective" standards they argue for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name one such society?

Certainly! Ours. I very much doubt that condemened criminals are often willing participants in their executions.

 

Want something a bit more clear cut? OK. In China, they used to practice exposure. This was were unwanted children (usually females) were left out to die under orchard trees.

 

Another? Rome - Gladiatorial events were the height of entertainment. Granted, most gladiator's didn't fight to the death (the cost would be far too high), but some did. They would also force criminals and/or slaves to act out plays in which the people that are killed, actually die.

 

The objectivity of moral does not require complete uniformity.

I never said complete uniformity would be the result. I said there was too much variablity to indicate an objective source.

 

If here exists one moral value common then this allows for objective moral values.

I'm not completely certain what you mean here. But I think you're saying that if there is one common moral value that would point to an objective source.

 

I would tentatively agree with this statement. The rub it that I've yet to find one and if we did, that objective source could certainly be something other than a supernatural entity (i.e. elvolutionary imparitive towards cooporation as a species).

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

As I already pointed out all societies define some homicide as justified. The fact that humans rationalize some homicides as justifiable does not indicate that murder is not universally condemned. To demonstrate that murder was not universally condemned you would be required to find a society in which no murder was condemned. Such a society does not exist. They all condemn murder in some form for some human being. Therefore murder is a universally condemned act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we define murder as "taking another's life without their consent", then yes, many societies have condoned murder.

Can you name one such society?

Now we will be travelling down the definition road where the Christian will define Murder as "killing that is against the law" which is a tautology.

 

Since the law changes depending upon the societies moral values, the definition automatically changes as well.

 

And there go the "objective" standards they argue for.

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if God is Good then if God did not exist then the objectivity of goodness would not exist, unless you can describe where this objective good exists independent of God.

God is not objectively good. Simple as that. Because God is his own subject, God can't be his own object.

 

 

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

It does not need to in order to still be objective.

Okay. Well, that's you then. The problem here is definitely you.

 

You've mentioned that "murder" is wrong. So then, define murder. Is it killing of an innocent with intent?

 

Then answer these questions:

 

Is killing kids or babies wrong?

Can kids or babies be evil and deserve death?

Can fetuses deserve death?

Is abortion right or wrong?

 

If we look in the Bible and try to draw some conclusion, we'd end up with the idea that it's morally wrong to kill Christian babies, but it is morally right to kill non-Christian babies (enemies to God). In other words, your morality is subjective and relativistic.

 

Ps 137:9, "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

 

So how do you define "murder"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we define murder as "taking another's life without their consent", then yes, many societies have condoned murder.

Can you name one such society?

Now we will be travelling down the definition road where the Christian will define Murder as "killing that is against the law" which is a tautology.

 

Since the law changes depending upon the societies moral values, the definition automatically changes as well.

 

And there go the "objective" standards they argue for.

Actually, that's societal "mores" (moe-rays). Since we're defining everything and everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

 

Of course morals are relative. If Hitler had won the war, he would be a hero not an evil person. There would be temples to him like the Lincoln memorial.

 

The evil of Hitler is relative to Germans loosing the war.

 

Morals are always subjective and relative to the situation.

 

You have tried to make murder an objective moral, while at the same time admitting that it is relative and subject to the interpretation of people.

 

You are correct to the extent that people have some values though not identical that can be recognized across all cultures, but that doesn't make them objective morals. It merely makes these values relative to our species. "Thou shall not kill." If no killing were actually an objective value we'd all die. We need to kill to live. Even vegetarians need to kill to live. If your God made the world as you say, that is the way he made it.

 

In any case your God is recorded as a killer and commander of killings. That in itself is proof that these morals are relative not objective. If they were objective, God would be bound by them. Even if God lay down these rules, they are only applicable to humans making these rules relative to humans. In addition these rules are subject to human interpretation which makes them subjective. Perhaps from your subjective point of view abortion is murder, from my subjective view it is not murder. You may say that abortion is objectively immoral, but that would only be your opinion.

 

From my perspective Hitler's killing of the Jews and other groups was evil. However from Hitler and company's point of view it was good. These peoples that they were killing were in their minds the evil doers. These peoples occupied places that Germans should occupy. These peoples were the Amalekites of his day. As a believer you quite likely view the killing of the Amalekites down to the last cow OK. If so this means you don't find Hitlers actions objectionable. You only find that his choice of people to exterminate was objectionable.

 

From my point of view honor killings of women is immoral murder. However, from a devote Muslim's point of view these killings are not only not murder, they are necessary. To these believers if they didn't kill these women they would be guilty of immorality. Our respective morality is relative to our beliefs and not to anything that exists objectively outside of those beliefs. When you insist that there are objective morals you are just insisting that your moral values are the real ones.

 

Try as you might, you will not be able to identify all or any of these objective moral absolutes that even all Christians will recognize as moral absolutes.

 

I've challenged many Christians spouting objective morals to write out a list of them that all Christians will agree apply absolutely in all circumstances i.e. these morals would not be relative. No Christian yet has attempted to do it. Why is that? Surely you will be able to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Immoral homicide? That is not any kind of distinction that makes sense.

 

I'm out of time, but you're being deliberately slippery while pretending to miss the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already pointed out all societies define some homicide as justified. The fact that humans rationalize some homicides as justifiable does not indicate that murder is not universally condemned. To demonstrate that murder was not universally condemned you would be required to find a society in which no murder was condemned. Such a society does not exist.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

 

So because exposure was rationalized in the eyes of society it was homicide and not murder? That sounds like situational ethics to me and just playing with semantics as well.

 

I think the "finding a society in which no murder was condemned" is a bit of a straw man as well. What society would survive that didn't restrict the behavior of its inhabitants. That's what morals are - they're societial pressures to help ensured the continuation of that society. That's why some behavior that can seem completely immoral to us was seen as justified, even moral, to the society that practiced it.

 

Let me change the subject a bit. You believe a prohibition against murder is absolute moral imperitive. What others do you beleive are?

 

Also - I find your distinction between murder and homicide to be fairly subjective.

 

From dictionary.com:

 

hom·i·cide   /ˈhɒməˌsaɪd, ˈhoʊmə-/ Show Spelled[hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-] Show IPA

–noun

1.the killing of one human being by another.

2.a person who kills another; murderer.

 

mur·der   /ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled[mur-der] Show IPA

–noun

1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitionsinclude murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during thecommission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

 

Homicide is just a latin-derived technical term for murder. The two are synomynous in almost every way. I see no "moral" evaluation being done in either case.

 

Again no act has been deemed taboo by all societies throughout time. Morals are defined by the society and then by the individual within that society. They are conditional and change from situation to situation, context to context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

 

Of course morals are relative. If Hitler had won the war, he would be a hero not an evil person. There would be temples to him like the Lincoln memorial.

 

The evil of Hitler is relative to Germans loosing the war.

 

Morals are always subjective and relative to the situation.

 

You have tried to make murder an objective moral, while at the same time admitting that it is relative and subject to the interpretation of people.

 

You are correct to the extent that people have some values though not identical that can be recognized across all cultures, but that doesn't make them objective morals. It merely makes these values relative to our species. "Thou shall not kill." If no killing were actually an objective value we'd all die. We need to kill to live. Even vegetarians need to kill to live. If your God made the world as you say, that is the way he made it.

 

In any case your God is recorded as a killer and commander of killings. That in itself is proof that these morals are relative not objective. If they were objective, God would be bound by them. Even if God lay down these rules, they are only applicable to humans making these rules relative to humans. In addition these rules are subject to human interpretation which makes them subjective. Perhaps from your subjective point of view abortion is murder, from my subjective view it is not murder. You may say that abortion is objectively immoral, but that would only be your opinion.

 

From my perspective Hitler's killing of the Jews and other groups was evil. However from Hitler and company's point of view it was good. These peoples that they were killing were in their minds the evil doers. These peoples occupied places that Germans should occupy. These peoples were the Amalekites of his day. As a believer you quite likely view the killing of the Amalekites down to the last cow OK. If so this means you don't find Hitlers actions objectionable. You only find that his choice of people to exterminate was objectionable.

 

From my point of view honor killings of women is immoral murder. However, from a devote Muslim's point of view these killings are not only not murder, they are necessary. To these believers if they didn't kill these women they would be guilty of immorality. Our respective morality is relative to our beliefs and not to anything that exists objectively outside of those beliefs. When you insist that there are objective morals you are just insisting that your moral values are the real ones.

The question is not whether Hitler thought it was good. Obviously he did. The question is whether you honestly believe that if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed everyone that what he did was moral if it was indeed moral. To believe it would be moral is a hideous thought in my mind. I believe rape is immoral no matter how many people were to tell me it was okay. It is a hideous violation of a human being.

 

Try as you might, you will not be able to identify all or any of these objective moral absolutes that even all Christians will recognize as moral absolutes.

 

I've challenged many Christians spouting objective morals to write out a list of them that all Christians will agree apply absolutely in all circumstances i.e. these morals would not be relative. No Christian yet has attempted to do it. Why is that? Surely you will be able to do it.

To demonstrate objective moral values exists we only need find one. Murder is such an objective moral value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Immoral homicide? That is not any kind of distinction that makes sense.

 

I'm out of time, but you're being deliberately slippery while pretending to miss the point.

"Immoral homocide" ... this discussion not being a tautology!? :HaHa:

 

Let me see if I get this right:

Moral is objective because murder is immoral. And what is the definition of murder? Immoral homicide, i.e. immoral killing. So any killing which is immoral is immoral because it is an immoral killing, not because of any other reasons or arguments, but just because it is immoral.

 

It's flaunting the circular argument in one's face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To demonstrate objective moral values exists we only need find one. Murder is such an objective moral value.

Define "murder," without using tautology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Immoral homicide? That is not any kind of distinction that makes sense.

A homicide is a term used scientifically to designate one human killing another. For example, a death certificate for a person killed by the state(death penalty) lists cause of death as a homicide. A jury determines whether it is legal. We determine if it is immoral. Some people think the death penalty is immoral others don't. Everyone agrees it is technically a homicide.

 

I'm out of time, but you're being deliberately slippery while pretending to miss the point.

Your baseless accusations get very boring. Did you stop and think for minute that maybe I'm trying to be concise and to the point. I find long winded diatribes to be unhelpful. Usually people can make a point in fewer words then they use if they think about what they are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Immoral homicide? That is not any kind of distinction that makes sense.

A homicide is a term used scientifically to designate one human killing another. For example, a death certificate for a person killed by the state(death penalty) lists cause of death as a homicide. A jury determines whether it is legal. We determine if it is immoral. Some people think the death penalty is immoral others don't. Everyone agrees it is technically a homicide.

:Doh:

 

"Homicide" isn't the word in question. It's the "immoral" part of the phrase. When is it immoral? If there is an objective view of what an immoral homicide is, then why don't we know it? You're stating that even in the question of death penalty, people disagree about its moral stand. So you're basically admitting that "immoral homicide" can't be clearly defined!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already pointed out all societies define some homicide as justified. The fact that humans rationalize some homicides as justifiable does not indicate that murder is not universally condemned. To demonstrate that murder was not universally condemned you would be required to find a society in which no murder was condemned. Such a society does not exist.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

 

So because exposure was rationalized in the eyes of society it was homicide and not murder? That sounds like situational ethics to me and just playing with semantics as well.

 

I think the "finding a society in which no murder was condemned" is a bit of a straw man as well. What society would survive that didn't restrict the behavior of its inhabitants. That's what morals are - they're societial pressures to help ensured the continuation of that society. That's why some behavior that can seem completely immoral to us was seen as justified, even moral, to the society that practiced it.

No, it is right to the point. All societies define some form of homicide as murder. Can you name any society that would not consider the random killing of a parent to be justified. Of course not. Even if you claim that geronticide is condoned in some society this does not mean that the prohibition of killing a parent for no reason is justified. It isn't. That specific behavior is universally condemned as immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only requirement with respect to the syllogism is that moral values exist objectively with respect to our minds. If you claim objective moral values do exist if God does not exist(counter to the premise), then in order to invalidate the premise you need to posit a repository of these objective moral values outside God.

 

Objective is objective, you cannot play fast and loose with the definition to suit your own arguments. either morals are Objective to ALL minds or they are NOT objective. To posit that morals are foisted upon us by god is nothing but a "might makes right" argument.

 

By the way I most certainly do NOT need to posit another repository to prove your argument wrong in the logical sense. Do you not understand how logic works? You do not get to be right by simply claiming that no alternative argument exists, even if you were correct in that assessment each argument is judged on in OWN merits. The only thing I need to do to prove your argument is wrong is exactly what I did, which is to show that one of your premises is either wrong or contains a fallacy. In this case it contains a fallacy, because "objective" is definitionaly incompatible with your premise.

 

What I have shown is that moving the control of ethics from us to god just moves the relativity further away from us, but is still ultimately relative.

 

Your claim is logically equivalent to claiming that square circles exists because god said so.

 

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

 

Bifurcation fallacy. There is more than two possibilities in a discussion of ethics. This is a typical bullshit apologist maneuver, you act as if the only two possibilities is that either god created morality OR morality is simply left to the whim of the individual.

 

Your example is a silly one, because morality, while a complex system, is basically a by product of two things, our desire to survive, and our drive to work together as social animals. Further, morals are generally not relative to the whim of the individual, but relative to much larger entities like the society.

 

It would be extremely unlikely for all humans to decide that what Hitler was doing was because it would be counter intuitive to those ends. Moreover, taking those to be the ends or morality/ethics we can objectively say he was wrong because his actions no longer meet the end goals of morality.

 

In fact this is about as close as we can get to objective, because once we agree on the overall goals of morality we can objectively say that certain morals are better for achieving those goals than others. Factually speaking this is exactly how we see ethical systems work, and god is not involved in the process at any point.

 

 

P.S. I invoke Godwin's law and declare you to have lost this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe rape is immoral no matter how many people were to tell me it was okay. It is a hideous violation of a human being.

 

Then you are more moral than your god, who never once condemns rape in the bible, and in fact in several places institutionalizes it. He specifically tells the Israelite that they could take all the virgin women from conquered nations as their sex slaves.

 

You can argue for objective morals all you want but at the end of the day your own holy book does not even support your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no tautology.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

Immoral homicide? That is not any kind of distinction that makes sense.

A homicide is a term used scientifically to designate one human killing another. For example, a death certificate for a person killed by the state(death penalty) lists cause of death as a homicide. A jury determines whether it is legal. We determine if it is immoral. Some people think the death penalty is immoral others don't. Everyone agrees it is technically a homicide.

 

I'm out of time, but you're being deliberately slippery while pretending to miss the point.

Your baseless accusations get very boring. Did you stop and think for minute that maybe I'm trying to be concise and to the point. I find long winded diatribes to be unhelpful. Usually people can make a point in fewer words then they use if they think about what they are saying.

First, let's look at the death penalty.

 

America: Legal and moral

Many other countries: Illegal and immoral.

Biblical times: Legal and moral.

 

Standards are changing just as they did with slavery. Morals are changing.

 

As another pointed out, gladiatorial combat was moral and legal. Now immoral and illegal.

 

Same with infanticide (usually female). It was - to that society - moral - at that time. Times change, moral standards change.

 

Your attempt to distinguish immoral from illegal does not rescue "objective" or "unchanging" morality, even for the killing of another human being!

 

You would like to have it this way:

 

If there is even one moral precept that has not changed, then there is objective "morality."

 

That is way too narrow: If there are any moral precepts that have changed, then there is no objective morality.

 

The case has been well established that moral standards have changed for many different things. Do you deny that? If you do, then you are, quite literally, in denial.

 

Incidentally, we are fortunate to be living at a time when we can actually witness the possible changing of a major moral precept. Which side will win? Will the death penalty remain a moral thing to do even as much of the rest of the world considers it not only immoral, but inhuman, or will the Islamicists and Christians be able to keep their precious death penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{T}He question is not whether Hitler thought it was good. Obviously he did. The question is whether you honestly believe that if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed everyone that what he did was moral if it was indeed moral. To believe it would be moral is a hideous thought in my mind. I believe rape is immoral no matter how many people were to tell me it was okay. It is a hideous violation of a human being.

 

Of course it would be moral, just like the killing of the Amalekites and other tribes living in the promised land was moral. If Hitler had won that would be proof that he was right, just like in the bible the extermination of pre-Israelite tribes was moral. In fact failures to do so were considered immoral as when Saul was punished for not completing the job against the Amalekites.

 

As far as brainwashing goes, I was raised in the 50's to believe that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities and the nuking of Japanese was not only good but heroic. Many if not most of my contemporaries still believe that this is the case. I'm quite sure that generations following Hitler's would consider the extermination of certain other peoples good or even heroic as well had he won. In addition these hypothetical generations would have considered the firebombings of German cities gross evil and would have prosecuted the perpetrators as criminals.

 

I notice here that you have avoided mentioning your judgment of Biblical genocides. I wonder if that is because it would interfere with your insistence that murder is an objective moral. If it is an objective moral then either God is a murderer, or genocide is not murder. You have a problem either way.

 

Things that are hideous in your mind are not necessarily hideous in the mind of others. You may think they ought to be hideous in the mind of others, but that does not make it so.

 

As I indicated above honor killing is hideous in my mind, but not killing for honor is hideous in the mind of others. Which has an objective value? Try as you might you cannot separate these things from the minds that hold them. That makes these morals, even murder, relative to the minds involved. Morals are subjective because people are subjective.

 

To demonstrate objective moral values exists we only need find one. Murder is such an objective moral value.

 

Murder is an objective moral in your mind, but you can't find it as such in the world because it can't even be defined in a fashion that even all Christians would agree on. You have not demonstrated it to be objective. If it were objective it would apply absolutely in all circumstances, which it does not even for you. You would consider the WWII Germans murderers, but not the biblical Israelites (or even the modern Israelis)though they were/are both doing the same thing. Your idea of murder is relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already pointed out all societies define some homicide as justified. The fact that humans rationalize some homicides as justifiable does not indicate that murder is not universally condemned. To demonstrate that murder was not universally condemned you would be required to find a society in which no murder was condemned. Such a society does not exist.

 

Homicide is killing a person. Murder is an immoral homicide.

 

So because exposure was rationalized in the eyes of society it was homicide and not murder? That sounds like situational ethics to me and just playing with semantics as well.

 

I think the "finding a society in which no murder was condemned" is a bit of a straw man as well. What society would survive that didn't restrict the behavior of its inhabitants. That's what morals are - they're societial pressures to help ensured the continuation of that society. That's why some behavior that can seem completely immoral to us was seen as justified, even moral, to the society that practiced it.

No, it is right to the point. All societies define some form of homicide as murder. Can you name any society that would not consider the random killing of a parent to be justified. Of course not. Even if you claim that geronticide is condoned in some society this does not mean that the prohibition of killing a parent for no reason is justified. It isn't. That specific behavior is universally condemned as immoral.

If by random you mean "indiscriminate", then your God makes "exceptions" which makes even the killing of a parent to be "relative.

 

I refer to the slaughter of the Midianite prisoners of war - and in particular the mothers and the male children (while taking the female virgins "for themselves").

 

Would you argue that slaughtering a group of parents is statistically "not random"? That what I would expect you to do.

 

Oh, and incidentally, you just called the actions of your God immoral. But that's ok, because morals change. We have a different standard now, so we don't have to have the slaughter of non-combatants and prisoners of war.

 

Thank God for that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, if God is Good then if God did not exist then the objectivity of goodness would not exist, unless you can describe where this objective good exists independent of God.

I am honestly trying to understand what you are saying here.

 

Is it something like this?

 

1) If God is good, objective morality exists

2) Objective morality does not exist

3) God does not exist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is right to the point. All societies define some form of homicide as murder. Can you name any society that would not consider the random killing of a parent to be justified. Of course not. Even if you claim that geronticide is condoned in some society this does not mean that the prohibition of killing a parent for no reason is justified. It isn't. That specific behavior is universally condemned as immoral.

And I pointed out a very reasonable explaination for why this is so (societal pressure and an evolutionary drive towards communal living).

 

To demonstrate objective moral values exists we only need find one. Murder is such an objective moral value.

And if your definition of murder were not dependent on a situational determination by the society it occurs in, I might agree that if we found any that would point to a possible objective source (be it natural or otherwise).

 

Again, there's no moral diffence between "homicide" and "murder". You created this distinction. Should we change the police department from "homicide" to "murder"? The very fact that a society rationalizes when these acts aren't immoral, to me points to the fact that they are not objective in origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.