Is it hard?

[Skavau]

You have "your" moral standard. Is it "high" or not will still subject to debate. You need an absolute scale to measure the degree of morality. For atheists, there is no such scale.

When I was an atheist, I could easily justify all my actions and retracted any sinful feeling appeared in me.

You still can.

You're for example, able to approve of the torture of people for what they think.

We got nothing on that.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I have the moral standard, according to my best judgment. Of course, it is "mine" in the sense that not every agrees with me on this subject.



It is high in the sense that it limits my actions. You don't have to agree that I have identified the correct moral standard.



WRONG! BZZZT!

My absolute scale is human flourishing, which is based on the requirements of life as a rational being with a human psychology. I have a rich sense of ethics, including many virtues that I identify as appropriate to human existence.

You don't have to agree with my ethical philosophy, but I definitely do identify a completely binding and objective scale with which to identify virtues and rank values for their appropriateness to human life.



Then you were a foolish atheist. Not all atheists are foolish, however.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And the content of that is subject to debate and correction.

And that is what atheism is about. Each atheist has his own idea and "standard". Very laughable.

 

[juvenissun]

For theists, there are as many "absolute" scales as there are different gods to believe in.

Pick up one. Then you have only one.

 

[juvenissun]

It was more like: As long as you aren´t perfect you will always feel sinful.


Ok.

Here it comes again. (you don't give up, do you?)

It should be: I will always feel sinful NOT because I am not perfect.

There are many imperfect things, but some of them will never feel sinful.

 

[juvenissun]

The actual difference is not theism vs. atheism. The actual differences is: There are people who declare their subjective standards objective, and there are those who don´t. Unfortunately for them, the first regularly fail in trying to demonstrate how their morals are objective or to demonstrate that the alleged absolute source of their morality even exists.

No no. What declares is the Bible. It is not written by one person over one time. Christians take It as the absolute standard. It is very objective. (I think Muslims make theirs even better, according to your standard of evaluation).

 

[Skavau]

No no. What declares is the Bible. It is not written by one person over one time. Christians take It as the absolute standard. It is very objective. (I think Muslims make theirs even better, according to your standard of evaluation).

Yet if you can't explain why something being penned in the Bible makes a moral objective then it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Same goes for Muslims and the Qu'ran.

 

[quatona]

Here it comes again. (you don't give up, do you?)

It should be: I will always feel sinful NOT because I am not perfect.

I could again clarify that this was not what I meant but I guess you will ignore this clarification yet another time.
Your statement is not contradicting mine, so I´m not seeing where we disagree.

There are many imperfect things, but some of them will never feel sinful.

You mean things that aren´t in any way related to ethics and morality? Ok.

 

[quatona]

No no. What declares is the Bible. It is not written by one person over one time.

So remind me: what renders the bible authoritative in terms of declaring standards objective?

Christians take It as the absolute standard.

That´s undisputed at this moment. What´s disputed it that they have demonstrated it to be the absolute standard.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Pick up one. Then you have only one.

Don't need religion to be moral.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thought-crime.

If you fabricate a problem no one can escape from it's a lot easier to sell an imaginary solution for it. It's especially easy to manufacture a willing market when you pretend that perfectly normal behavior needs your fix.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't need religion to be moral.

No religion, no morality.

 

[juvenissun]

So remind me: what renders the bible authoritative in terms of declaring standards objective?

That´s undisputed at this moment. What´s disputed it that they have demonstrated it to be the absolute standard.

People. Christians.

The problem is not who renders it, but does it exist or not.
There is no such standard for atheists even there are many atheists.

 

[juvenissun]

Yet if you can't explain why something being penned in the Bible makes a moral objective then it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Same goes for Muslims and the Qu'ran.

There is no need to do that. Just recognize it and obey it would be good enough. That is how a standard becomes a standard.

Atheist does not have a standard because everyone is asking WHY but no one can give answer to make everyone satisfied.

 

[Rajni]

No religion, no moral.

Actually, this isn't entirely true. There are moral people who are of no particular religious affiliation.

 

[juvenissun]

I could again clarify that this was not what I meant but I guess you will ignore this clarification yet another time.
Your statement is not contradicting mine, so I´m not seeing where we disagree.


You mean things that aren´t in any way related to ethics and morality? Ok.

It is not contradicting. But the cause-consequence logic is very different.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, this isn't entirely true. There are moral people who are of no particular religious affiliation.

They call it morality, but it is a philosophy. You have yours and I have mine.
Morality is evaluated against an absolute standard.

 

[quatona]

The problem is not who renders it, but does it exist or not.

Exactly my point. That´s the part you need to work on in order to even only begin to have a case.
It´s not a matter of what you believe but a matter of whether it exists.
So let´s start with the first step.

 

[quatona]

It is not contradicting. But the cause-consequence logic is very different.

Except that I have told you multiple times that I didn´t intend to argue for or from a cause-consequence logic.

 

[Skavau]

There is no need to do that. Just recognize it and obey it would be good enough. That is how a standard becomes a standard.

Uh, there is if you're not completely credulous and convinced by the claims of innate authority. I have no reason to accept Biblical standards of what one ought. I am not convinced by you simply reasserting that I should capitulate in my skepticism and merely follow orders

 

[quatona]

There is no need to do that. Just recognize it and obey it would be good enough. That is how a standard becomes a standard.

Your keyword "absolute" seems to have got lost during the discussion.