Author Topic: Objective Morality  (Read 7985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #87 on: May 13, 2012, 05:21:35 PM »
GH, you weren't around for it, but Jstwebbrowsing is on record as stating that it is moral for children/infants to be held guilty for the crimes of their parents/ancestors.  Just for context.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #88 on: May 13, 2012, 05:24:01 PM »
Well I'm not 100% sure but I can make educated guesses I think.  Perhaps it was in the genes.  I know that's lame but it is possible.  Maybe, and I believe this to be the case, he used his foreknowledge and knew the children would turn out just like their parents and pronounced judgement then and there. 

So he punished them for things they had not done yet? That seems a bit arbitrary.

Not if his foreknowledge is accurate.  There were many times he waited for the "full measure of their sins" to add up before he executed judgment.  This is what was happening while the Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians.  Jehovah basically killed two birds with one stone by giving Israel the Promised Land and executing those he deemed as deserving death.

As far as the future prospects for the children are concerned I am not sure.  The prospects for their parents are about Nil, meaning they will not be allowed to enter the 1000 Judgement Day.  In other words, they were pitched straight into Gehenna.  I am really not sure about the children. 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 05:33:33 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #89 on: May 13, 2012, 05:29:48 PM »
GH, you weren't around for it, but Jstwebbrowsing is on record as stating that it is moral for children/infants to be held guilty for the crimes of their parents/ancestors.  Just for context.

He has been here.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #90 on: May 13, 2012, 05:32:48 PM »
So he punished them for things they had not done yet? That seems a bit arbitrary.

Not if his foreknowledge is accurate.

But that doesn't line up very well with Ezekiel 18:4 : The soul who sins will die. Not the soul shall die for sins that it will commit.

Note that the context of Ezekiel 18:4 deals with sins specifically committed and also says that sons will not be punished for the sins of their fathers:
Ezekiel 18:19-20:
19 “Yet you say, ‘ Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #91 on: May 13, 2012, 05:38:18 PM »
Quote from: GodlessHeathen
But that doesn't line up very well with Ezekiel 18:4 : The soul who sins will die. Not the soul shall die for sins that it will commit.

Yes I had not thought of this.  This helps.  I think the mention of the word soul here means it should be understood in light of how does a soul actually die.  The soul dies in Gehenna as we discussed before.  The children will wait in Hades and are therefore still alive in Jehovah's eyes.

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2012, 05:39:43 PM »
Quote from: GodlessHeathen
But that doesn't line up very well with Ezekiel 18:4 : The soul who sins will die. Not the soul shall die for sins that it will commit.

Yes I had not thought of this.  This helps.  I think the mention of the word soul here means it should be understood in light of how does a soul actually die.  The soul dies in Gehenna as we discussed before.  The children will wait in Hades and are therefore still alive in Jehovah's eyes.

It seems one really has to jump through hoops to justify Jehovah's  behavior. It seems much easier to reject the whole system altogether.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2012, 05:41:20 PM »
Well in order to judge his morality you must attempt to look at things through his eyes.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2012, 05:42:49 PM »
But as I also brought up earlier, this is not how Jehovah operates within the new covenant which is understood to be a better covenant.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #95 on: May 13, 2012, 05:51:34 PM »
Azael I believe I covered your objections.  If not then let me know.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2012, 05:53:59 PM »
But I really wanted to discuss something else today.  I wanted to discuss greed.

How can greed be viewed subjectively? 

If you are greedy then it's okay and if you're one that suffers because of the greed then it's not okay?  And if you're in the middle you don't care one way or the other?

Is this accurate?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #97 on: May 13, 2012, 06:02:09 PM »
But as I also brought up earlier, this is not how Jehovah operates within the new covenant which is understood to be a better covenant.

... no, which is said to be a better covenant. 

You have to be careful, JST, with statements like the above - the 'better' in the church is subjective, based on what we're taught. 

... I'm explaining this poorly.  And.. something tells me you haven't read Candide, so the absolute best example I can give you is off the table.  Let me try a sort of anecdotal parable fable thing:

Imagine, if you will, a child born to parents who are addicted to meth.  They love their child very much, but they don't have any money and they're very unreliable.  The child spends its formative years in a home where food comes at irregular times, bathing and clothing comes only when the parents remember it, and things like toys or 'routine' are nonexistent.  However, life isn't wholly bad:  the parents do love their child, the child has brothers and sisters who assist with the varagries of their life, and, all in all, to that child, life seems good.

Their father tells them stories about times before they were born; "it was awful," he says, "we couldn't keep the lights on, the cops were in the building every week - I'm glad we moved to this trailer.  It's so much better!"  The children, having never experienced anything but the trailer, will grow up considering the time before the trailer 'the bad times', and, should they never see an alternative, will view their current life as 'the good times'.

This is similar to the idea of the 'new covenant' - the 'old covenant' was bad, or insufficient, or failing.  It had to be, right?  Why else would there be need for a new one?  In this new one, things are so much better!  God no longer requires messy sacrifices of living creatures, he no longer cares what we eat, women aren't even unclean anymore! (well, over time - we grew into that, I think).  But, to those of us outside, not part of this covenant, it doesn't look much better:  you are now fractured almost priest by priest, each one teaching a different brand of intolerance right alongside the words that say 'and love everybody'.  Hypocracy and immorality run rampant through the faith.  Apologetics are used not to clarify, but to justify - and actions that remove freedom, encourage a sort of mental slavery, and promote ignorance are the things being justified.

This 'new covenant' is two thousand years old, and its fruit is painfully obvious.

For you, it seems to make sense - you, like many of us were, have been raised with these ideas, and you've heard (and bought into) the justifications.  But.. to us, these covenants aren't 'understood to be better'.  Just... different.  Perhaps even worse; Judiasm is fractured, yes, but the amount of fracturing doesn't even begin to approach the amazing shattering of the Christian faith following Martin Luthor.  What you think every christian believes?  It's not.  It's just.. not.  Every single tenet of the faith I can think of (save a very small handful - maybe five or so) is in dispute.

Your church insulates you with these concepts.  It isn't good, it isn't bad - it just is; your faith is unchallenged by the people who teach it to you.  Phrases like that are evidence of it. 

Your church today would not have lynched those men from the picture earlier in this thread - but good, churchgoing Christians did, and felt justified in doing so... and were affirmed in it by their pastors.

When I was young, a man named David Duke ran for governor of the state of Louisiana.  Let me quote him to you:  "I don't call myself a white supremacist. I'm a civil rights activist concerned about European-American rights."   This man was endorsed by a good half-dozen church denominations in the state, including the Catholic lobby.

Would your church have endorsed him?  Are the thousands that voted for this man, the white supremacist organizations that backed him under a cross - are they not Christian?  How can you say they're not?  They certainly wouldn't say you are.

Do you begin to see what we do?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 06:10:40 PM by Grimm »
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #98 on: May 13, 2012, 06:08:19 PM »
But I really wanted to discuss something else today.  I wanted to discuss greed.

How can greed be viewed subjectively? 

If you are greedy then it's okay and if you're one that suffers because of the greed then it's not okay?  And if you're in the middle you don't care one way or the other?

Is this accurate?

Hardly.   Though I'm not sure I understand where you're going with the question.

Greed is self-interest taken to an extreme that removes any consideration for anyone or anything outside of the 'self'; it is rooted in the notion that "I myself" matter more than, and, in fact, am owed by the society of which I am a part.  It is the force that drives the selfish businessman to say "I am self-made" while ignoring the roads, the mail system, the streetlights, the police, the fire department, the ambulances, the hospitals, the social programs, the small business loans, and any number of other socially-created and socially-funded items that make his business and his success possible.  It is the mind of a child, of a two-year-old who assumes everything they touch is 'theirs', and who cannot understand that things may have ownership and purpose beyond the immediate.

In other words, greed is a sort of infantile response carried forward into adulthood, an immaturity that stems from a willful disregard of those around us.

Suffering is never good; greed, however, often results in suffering, both to the greedy individual and those around that greedy person (think slumlord - he harms others for years before being caught, at which point he and his family is ruined).    From a Humanist perspective, greed is problematic; it causes harm to others in a direct and relevant way (often through inaction), and is something to be discouraged, or even punished, in society. 

Greed includes connotations of dishonesty and willful disregarding of others' welfare - this is what makes it an 'evil'.  Causing harm to others when other alternatives exist?  That's the very soul of what makes an action 'bad' or 'wrong', when one begins to discuss ethics (and, hence, morals).

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #99 on: May 13, 2012, 06:18:51 PM »
Not if his foreknowledge is accurate.  There were many times he waited for the "full measure of their sins" to add up before he executed judgment.  This is what was happening while the Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians.  Jehovah basically killed two birds with one stone by giving Israel the Promised Land and executing those he deemed as deserving death.
You have a problem here - the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt.

That aside, punishing people "yeah up until the 10th generation" is perfectly fine by Biblical Science (or as we say, BS).

Say your father is a builder of idols. You are conceived and born and obviously genetics cause you too to be a builder of idols because your mother can see him building idols. Therefore you should be punished.

The Truthiness of this BS cannot be denied by the faithful:

Laban wants Jacob to stay on after his 14-year commitment is complete. Jacob proposes that he'll continue to watch Laban's sheep and goats, but the goats that are born brown or multicolored and the sheep that are born speckled or spotted will become his property as his wages.

Laban goes ahead and separates out those existing rare goats and sheep from his flock. Jacob is left with only white goats and sheep. Jacob's wages for serving Laban will be the goats and sheep that are born that look nothing like their parents.

BUT God revealed the secrets of genetic engineering!! -> read on!

Gen 30:37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban.

So, we can see that whatever your mother was looking at when you were conceived is exactly what you will turn out like
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 06:20:46 PM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #100 on: May 13, 2012, 06:18:55 PM »
Grimm

Allow me to address your first post first.  I agree with you and I see it.  One thing a lot of Christian denomiations agree on is that their religion is the true religion.  So they are actually in agreement that there is a true religion and this is taught in the Bible.  But if there is a true religion and a "True Christian" then they must be so buried under garbage that it's not even funny.

Consider this.  The Bible says the "narrow" is the road leading off into life and "few" find it.  But "broad" is the road leading of into destruction and "many" find it.  Now since such a great number of people say they are Christian then does that not mean that there are a lot of Christian people traveling down the broad road?  And if the Bible itself tells this then why should anyone be surprised when we see it happening?

Now I will address your second post.  This was brought up as part of a discussion about the objectivity or subjectivity or morality.  Is greed objectively bad?  Or is that subjective?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #101 on: May 13, 2012, 06:24:35 PM »
Graybeard

Maybe my theory is incorrect.  I cannot back it up with any scriptures so it is just a guess.  But what remains is that if morality is subjective then Jehovah was well within his moral right to do what he decided was moral.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #102 on: May 13, 2012, 06:28:05 PM »
But back to greed.  I'm really trying to get away from discussing my religious beliefs.  It seem only to cause hostility.  Here are some statistics I found.  I don't know how accurate they actually are but you will not believe what you are about to see.  If someone were to put mankind on trial for murder, do you think they would be convicted?



Quote
In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"

Every year 15 million children die of hunger

For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years

Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented for the price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its military in two days!

The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will die this year.

One in twelve people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5. United Nations Food and Agriculture

The Indian subcontinent has nearly half the world's hungry people. Africa and the rest of Asia together have approximately 40%, and the remaining hungry people are found in Latin America and other parts of the world. Hunger in Global Economy

Nearly one in four people, 1.3 billion - a majority of humanity - live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. UNICEF

3 billion people in the world today struggle to survive on US$2/day.

In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

Half of all children under five years of age in South Asia and one third of those in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished.

In 1997 alone, the lives of at least 300,000 young children were saved by vitamin A supplementation programmes in developing countries.

Malnutrition is implicated in more than half of all child deaths worldwide - a proportion unmatched by any infectious disease since the Black Death

About 183 million children weigh less than they should for their age

To satisfy the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only US$13 billion- what the people of the United States and the European Union spend on perfume each year.

The assets of the world's three richest men are more than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries on the planet.

Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger

It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 06:32:03 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #103 on: May 13, 2012, 06:28:58 PM »
The Bible says the "narrow" is the road leading off into life and "few" find it.  But "broad" is the road leading of into destruction and "many" find it.  Now since such a great number of people say they are Christian then does that not mean that there are a lot of Christian people traveling down the broad road?  And if the Bible itself tells this then why should anyone be surprised when we see it happening?

jst, have you heard of the "avoiding the wrong hell" dilemma? I know you don't believe in hell in the traditional sense, but the principle behind the dilemma is basically this.

There are hundreds of different and conflicting religious schools of thought. The likelihood of one particular school of thought being "right" is directly proportional to the total number of different and opposing schools of thought. So say there were two conflicting schools of thought, they each would have a 50% chance of being right. If there were four, they would each have a 25% chance of being right. If there were 1,000, they would each have a .1% chance of being right.

The point is, the odds of any one religious school of thought being wrong are much greater than the odds of it being right.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #104 on: May 13, 2012, 06:46:00 PM »
Yes I fully appreciate this monumental problem.  Personally I approach it using the advice my grandmother, a Nazarene, gave me.  And this is probably the best advice anyone has ever given me.  And she gave me this advice because of her awarness of my search for Christian truth.  The advice was, "What you know to be true practice."

Now unfortunatly I don't do this.  But if I did then I would be confident of my resurrection but I don't so I'm not.  But I still do consider it a goal worth striving for.  And I am still not finished with my search for Christian truth.

Now if this religion makes me a good neighbor and a good citizen then even if I am wrong then what have I lost?  I am confident that living by Biblical principles will ultimately work out to be my best chance for happiness (as opposed to temporary pleasure), now and in the future.  So I just don't understand why anyone, including an athiest, should complain.  Maybe complain because I argue with them but for what else?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #105 on: May 13, 2012, 06:51:34 PM »
Yes I fully appreciate this monumental problem.  Personally I approach it using the advice my grandmother, a Nazarene, gave me.  And this is probably the best advice anyone has ever given me.  And she gave me this advice because of her awarness of my search for Christian truth.  The advice was, "What you know to be true practice."

Now unfortunatly I don't do this.  But if I did then I would be confident of my resurrection but I don't so I'm not.  But I still do consider it a goal worth striving for.  And I am still not finished with my search for Christian truth.

Now if this religion makes me a good neighbor and a good citizen then even if I am wrong then what have I lost?  I am confident that living by Biblical principles will ultimately work out to be my best chance for happiness (as opposed to temporary pleasure), now and in the future.  So I just don't understand why anyone, including an athiest, should complain.  Maybe complain because I argue with them but for what else?

Not complaining so much as concern, knowing where religion can and often does lead. There are a lot of principles in the Bible worth living by, but, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, there is also a lot of crap in there. Unwavering loyalty to a supreme, unseen being has often resulted in great attrocities done in the name of said being, all because the people believed that those acts were the will of God. I'm not saying you personally would do such a thing but that no one is immune.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #106 on: May 13, 2012, 07:00:31 PM »
Not from my point of view.  I've never said God is immoral.  So more acurately you argue from what you think my point of view should be.  This explains why some arguments do not make sense to me.

Not at all.

The epicurean argument from evil is just a contextual comparison of claims associated with a kind of god compared to what that god supposedly does.

It has nothing to do with stating a god is immoral, it instead is about saying the actions of a said god are contradictory from its own claimed purpose.

Whenever you have been confronted with contradictory actions, your first response is to insert a ( special pleading fallacy ) qualification to justify the action.  You make the victims guilty, dehumanizing them in order to reduce their perceived equality with yourself.  You also rationalize towards a tautology that makes 'good' impossible to define and meaningless, hence god is good when god orders dashing babies against rocks and god is good when god doesn't order dashing babies against rock.

Then what is good, if nothing?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #107 on: May 13, 2012, 07:16:00 PM »
Quote
Not complaining so much as concern, knowing where religion can and often does lead. There are a lot of principles in the Bible worth living by, but, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, there is also a lot of crap in there. Unwavering loyalty to a supreme, unseen being has often resulted in great attrocities done in the name of said being, all because the people believed that those acts were the will of God. I'm not saying you personally would do such a thing but that no one is immune.

Yes I can appreciate this.  However I do also think that a great many of them knew they were doing wrong, by not following the Bible, and they just didn't care.  I mean there is NOWHERE in the Bible were Christians are supposed to burn witches.  Likely, some individual or individuals received some sort of "special revelation" and they acted upon that rather than what is in the Bible.  Many "prophets" today still do the same thing.

However according to my understanding there is going to be no more revelation until after the end of this system.  For me to go kill someone for Jehovah would be contrary to everything I've learned about him.  And if I receive some sort of "vision" then I am hallucinating.  Consider that prophesy was a gift the same as healing was a gift and all gifts formed a group.  So if God doesn't heal amputees then do you think he gives prophesies today?  Nope.  So like I said, lies or hallucinations but not Jehovah.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #108 on: May 13, 2012, 07:17:22 PM »
Omen

Yes but the argument failed.  If all morality is subjective then a god can do anything he likes and not be immoral. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #109 on: May 13, 2012, 07:21:20 PM »
Omen

Yes but the argument failed.  If all morality is subjective then a god can do anything he likes and not be immoral.

Did you even read?

The epicurean argument from evil is just a contextual comparison of claims associated with a kind of god compared to what that god supposedly does.

It has nothing to do with stating a god is immoral, it instead is about saying the actions of a said god are contradictory from its own claimed purpose.

The only person inserting whether or not god is 'immoral' is you.  The argument is not failed because you lack the comprehension to understand what is being stated or create a strawman in response to it.

The argument fundamentally describes how god is contradictory in character, either incapable of preventing evil and thus not omniscient/omnipotent or not really omnibenevolent. 

Are you saying god is not good because you agree good is meaningless?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #110 on: May 13, 2012, 07:25:34 PM »
Yes I can appreciate this.  However I do also think that a great many of them knew they were doing wrong, by not following the Bible,..

The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.  As were, and still are, the arguments against women's rights, gay rights, non-christian rights, etc.  Those who opposed slavery had very little in biblical arguments against slavery, just as those who support women's rights, gays, or non-christians face an uphill battle against a culture that tries to narrowly assume value is only arrived through a belief originating from biblical extremes.

In fact, it was commonly believed in much of Christendom that african americans were a product of the curse upon caine/ham.  This commonly held notion fell out of use towards the end of the 19th century with the advent of modern biology largely supported by contributions of Darwin.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #111 on: May 13, 2012, 07:27:04 PM »
Not from my point of view.  I've never said God is immoral.  So more acurately you argue from what you think my point of view should be.  This explains why some arguments do not make sense to me.

Not at all.

The epicurean argument from evil is just a contextual comparison of claims associated with a kind of god compared to what that god supposedly does.

It has nothing to do with stating a god is immoral, it instead is about saying the actions of a said god are contradictory from its own claimed purpose.

Whenever you have been confronted with contradictory actions, your first response is to insert a ( special pleading fallacy ) qualification to justify the action.  You make the victims guilty, dehumanizing them in order to reduce their perceived equality with yourself.  You also rationalize towards a tautology that makes 'good' impossible to define and meaningless, hence god is good when god orders dashing babies against rocks and god is good when god doesn't order dashing babies against rock.

Then what is good, if nothing?

Yes I did read.  You're basically sitting on God's lap to slap him in the face by "borrowing" his morals.  But even then he is not contradictory and I have shown that above.  Jehovah's rule is basically this "I reserve the right to determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die."
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #112 on: May 13, 2012, 07:31:20 PM »
Quote from: Omen
The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.  As were, and still are, the arguments against women's rights, gay rights, non-christian rights, etc.  Those who opposed slavery had very little in biblical arguments against slavery, just as those who support women's rights, gays, or non-christians face an uphill battle against a culture that tries to narrowly assume value is only arrived through a belief originating from biblical extremes.

This is because men tried to combine the laws of man with the laws of Jehovah.  While some good has come from it, overall it does not work nor was it meant to work.  Jehovah does not lead his servants through the governments of man.  Satan is in control of the governments of man.  The above statistics I posted are evidence of this.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #113 on: May 13, 2012, 07:36:29 PM »
deleted
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #114 on: May 13, 2012, 07:37:50 PM »
Quote from: Omen
The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.  As were, and still are, the arguments against women's rights, gay rights, non-christian rights, etc.  Those who opposed slavery had very little in biblical arguments against slavery, just as those who support women's rights, gays, or non-christians face an uphill battle against a culture that tries to narrowly assume value is only arrived through a belief originating from biblical extremes.

This is because men tried to combine the laws of man with the laws of Jehovah.

This is a claim, unsupported.


Quote
  While some good has come from it, overall it does not work nor was it meant to work.

So when your god told the Israelites that they could make slaves of non-israelites, it was not meant to work?

Quote
Jehovah does not lead his servants through the governments of man.  Satan is in control of the governments of man.  The above statistics I posted are evidence of this.

This a non-sequitur, a fallacy, the laws that they appealed to where laws that god insisted upon. 

So a law against stealing is a law from satan?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Objective Morality
« Reply #115 on: May 13, 2012, 07:42:56 PM »
Yes I did read.  You're basically sitting on God's lap to slap him in the face by "borrowing" his morals.  But even then he is not contradictory and I have shown that above.  Jehovah's rule is basically this "I reserve the right to determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die."

This is what I don't like about the objective morality argument from theists.  They to give an example of something that (presumably) everyone thinks is evil, inhuman, and inexcusable(in this case, killing babies).  Then when it's pointed out that god did such a thing, or encouraged others to do it, is implied to have done it, or otherwise gave tacit approval, they go out of your way to defend/justify it.  This "objective" morality sounds far too subjective.

So which is it?  Is killing babies cruel and inhuman, as stated in the begining of the thread, or is it justifiable in some cases (like when god does it).  If it's the later, then how is it "objective"?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.