The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ed1wolf]

So lemme see if I've got this straight! If you lie to em, you'll burn in hell for that because lying is objectively wrong! But if you shoot them in the head and blow their brains out, well...... that's okay. You joking' right??? Bruh-man's got jokes! (LOL) No; all joking aside; ARE YOU SERIOUS???

Yes, using deadly force in self defense that saves a human life is morally good in the eyes of God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, using deadly force in self defense that saves a human life is morally good in the eyes of God.

Really? Which scripture says lying under such conditions is wrong, but deadly force under such conditions is okay?

 

[Ed1wolf]

What's the point of free will then? When God only wants people to follow his commands then it is pretty stupid to introduce a system that gives people the ability to disobey these commands.

God wants a loving relationship with humans, and that can only occur if we freely choose to follow Him. True love can only occur if it is freely chosen. And by us loving Him, He can destroy evil forever which is His ultimate goal.

 

[Ken-1122]

God wants a loving relationship with humans, and that can only occur if we freely choose to follow Him. True love can only occur if it is freely chosen.

So why did he create us with a natural desire to reject him, when he could have created us with a natural desire to embrace him?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Who makes that argument?

Darwin, Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and many more less famous atheists.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
All they have to do is take one more step using the a basic law of logic called Causality. And as I posted earlier some do.

ken: Well when those who do take that step take it, they are acting on faith, not science and they should make that distinction clear so there is no confusion concerning what they say.

No, they are acting on logic, as I demonstrated above.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, they are acting on logic, as I demonstrated above.

Logic can be subjective; logic to one person is often illogical to another. But whatever the case, when they make that leap they are not acting on science.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, just because most people dont believe in or want to live according to an objective moral standard does not mean that it doesn't exist.

ken: Actually judging by the way you seem to describe objective, everybody can have an objective moral standard; each a little different from the other, that they choose to live by.

No, they can think they have an objective moral standard, but only Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God's moral standards actually have an objective moral standard.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How? Evolution requires there to be an opening in an ecological niche for a new species to come into existence, if the ancestral species which would occupy that niche does not die out then the new species would not have a niche to survive in.

ken: After reading it again, I suspect I misunderstood your question. let me put it this way; if the ancestor species lives forever, and the new species are constantly dying out, the new species will probably never get a chance to develop, thus leaving you with only the species that never dies.

And also Evolution ends as I stated earlier. So to go back to my main point death and suffering are a natural part of evolution and without them Evolution cannot occur. So why are you against them?

 

[Strathos]

Darwin, Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and many more less famous atheists.

Do you have direct quotes of these people stating that?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, they can think they have an objective moral standard, but only Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God's moral standards actually have an objective moral standard.

Actually Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God’s moral standards only think they have an objective moral standard as well! But they are actually only living according to the Christian God’s subjective moral standard.

And also Evolution ends as I stated earlier. So to go back to my main point death and suffering are a natural part of evolution and without them Evolution cannot occur. So why are you against them?

You provided an impossible unrealistic scenario that could stop Evolution; you didn’t show evolution depends on death or pain. You could have just as easily claimed evolution depends on happiness and life because without new life being born, evolution stops as well! Your argument fails.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Nope wrong again - Hitler and most Nazis believed that Jesus was Gods son, they change the nature of Jesus to be more of a warrior but he was Gods son. That is completely incompatible with Pantheism! After all Pantheist Gods don't go around having children, do they?

Yes, some Nazis claimed to be Christians however the ones that did, generally came from churches that were theologically liberal and therefore rejected many teachings of the bible including moral teachings such as obviously loving your enemies. As far as Hitler you obviously did not read my earlier posts where I proved that Hitler hated Christianity in private. He claimed to not hate it in his propaganda like Mein Kampf. But even as a child, his best friend said that he quit going to mass against his mothers wishes. He also said as an adult that "I myself am a heathen to the core." Hitler also said the "heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." And there are many quotes of his that show that he believed that nature was god and gods laws were the laws of nature, so all the evidence points to him as being a scientific pantheist. He greatly admired science and what he considered rationality. Actually Pantheists dont believe in multiple gods, they believe that Nature is god. There is only one god and it is everything.

riv: The Nazis did not believe that morality was subjective - they believed that it was cast in iron - their way or the high way. The words "Oh you may have a point there, let me go back to my Nazi party and discuss it" are not ones commonly heard around Nazis.

Actually you are correct, they believed that natures laws (their morality esp. Hitler's) were objective and one of the most important was that only the strong should survive. What I meant was even though they believed that their morality was objective and backed by science, it was in fact subjective, because they subjectively chose their own race to be the superior race favored by nature and their god, but there was no objectively rational reason to choose their own race as the one nature favored. If non-theistic evolution is true then there is no objective reason to favor Aryans or even humans at all over other species.

riv: The very idea of an master race is inherently linked to God, as a conscious being, one race is superior to all the others as pre-defined by the creator.

Not according to the Christian God, the Christian God teaches that all humans are created in His image and all are equally loved even His enemies. And according to Hitler, he believed that Nature/the pantheistic impersonal god favored Aryans over all other humans. The Pantheistic god is a conscious being but is not really a personal being.

riv: Here is your biggest mistake - Dr. Gresham Machen talks about he came across German liberalism in academic circles, Not (here's the important bit) Not the general populace.

That was in America, in Germany because theological liberalism had been in Germany for over 100 years even by the 1920's, it had started influencing the ordinary Germans. Evidence for this is seen in many social issues, nudity in German movies began much earlier than in America, abortion was legal in the 1920s in Germany, and also Germany was the first western nation with a Gay rights movement that also started in early 20th century. This shows how biblical morality had already begun to been undermined by the early 20th century in Germany, long before the US which really only just started accepting liberal theology in the early 1900's and only in academia and certain non Christian groups like Unitarians.

 

[Ken-1122]

As far as Hitler you obviously did not read my earlier posts where I proved that Hitler hated Christianity in private. He claimed to not hate it in his propaganda like Mein Kampf. But even as a child, his best friend said that he quit going to mass against his mothers wishes. He also said as an adult that "I myself am a heathen to the core." Hitler also said the "heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."

So you take the word of someone claiming to be Hitlers confidant over what Hitler actually said in his books, his speeches, and what he did in public? Wow! Talking about grasping at straws.

Actually you are correct, they believed that natures laws (their morality esp. Hitler's) were objective and one of the most important was that only the strong should survive. What I meant was even though they believed that their morality was objective and backed by science, it was in fact subjective, because they subjectively chose their own race to be the superior race favored by nature and their god, but there was no objectively rational reason to choose their own race as the one nature favored.

That’s what YOU say; but according to them there was an objectively rational reason to choose the Aryan race as superior to all others; they even had faulty science to confirm their beliefs. The point is, they believed morality was objective, and backed up by science.

Not according to the Christian God, the Christian God teaches that all humans are created in His image and all are equally loved even His enemies.

It all depends on where you look; remember God considered the Jews his chosen people, and there were instances when their enemies (Midianites, Amalekites, and others) were not loved but slaughtered

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Hitler claimed to use all those same things to make his moral decisions, so why were his conclusions different from yours?

ken: Because his logic, reason, and empathy is different than mine.

In what way?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And since you both use the same processes, what gives you the right to condemn his conclusions?

ken: Just as he has a right to disagree with me, I have a right to disagree with him.

Do you think the USA and Britain did the right thing to fight him and destroy Nazi Germany? If so, why? Doesn't he have a right to live out his conclusions?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If they think that their morality is objective then they definitely ARE wrong.

ken: I agree! But then so are you. The problem is; neither of you know it! You all think that you and those who think like you are the only ones with a basis for objective morality.

But I can demonstrate it logically, they cannot.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok then you have no objectively rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.

ken: Of course not! I have a subjective rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.

Ok, then those are just your feelings not based on anything real. Someone should not be condemned just based on subjective feelings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course, natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and most scientists agree it operates on humans AND animals and is still in operation causing us to evolve. So you deny this?

ken: Can you give an example of natural selection that is being applied to humans?

No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.

 

[Rivga]

No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.

Lets put aside that evolution by natural selection has met its burden of proof, to the highest levels in science - this essentially means that it is not really in doubt by anyone who is considered a credible expert, despite the large amount of funding pumped into proving it wrong it simply strengthens it.

Do you believe that a wolf is the common ancestor to all dogs?

So you believe that lions and tigers come from a common ancestor?

Given the above could this creature be linked to the below:

 

[Rivga]

And there are many quotes of his that show that he believed that nature was god and gods laws were the laws of nature, so all the evidence points to him as being a scientific pantheist. He greatly admired science and what he considered rationality. Actually Pantheists dont believe in multiple gods, they believe that Nature is god. There is only one god and it is everything.

Well we have multiple quotes from Hitler, nothing in those quotes supports Pantheist.

Even before Hitler was the leader of Germany he was subjected to massive amounts of lies and slanders, with Germany being a religious country what better way to slander him. So you must take some of his so called Quotes with a pinch of salt.
- Those made in his book or in the full view of people are much more reliable.

Heathen - we know he did not strictly follow the Catholic churches current view - he believes Christ is a warrior, not some meek peacemaker. So even if this quote is true he could describe himself as a heathen and still not be a Pantheist.

But how about solid evidence.

Nazi list of Banned books, no doubting that given the historical documentation that exists:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

We should focus on 2 categories here:
1) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

and

2) Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.

Worst Pantheist book ban list EVER!

 

[Rivga]

abortion was legal in the 1920s in Germany, .

Germany birth until 1926 abortion was illegal in all instances - both Woman and Doctor will go to jail.
In 1926 German courts state if and only if you can give sufficient evidence that the birth posses a serious danger to the mother (read death here) then abortion will be allowed.

Board definition of legal!

Compare this to the US - abortion where abortion was illegal and still very common, we have one statistic in the Late 20s 15k women died of abortion per year. That's just those that died.
So the US seems to be in a similar state of liberalism as Germany - probably more so on this front.

Germany was the first western nation with a Gay rights movement that also started in early 20th century

Homosexuality up until late 1960s has always been illegal in German, Berlin was noted for being tolerant during the 1920s. But this is Berlin, and does not translate outside of Berlin (or for that matter to most of Berlin just the more educated areas).
4 Best places to be Homosexual in 1920s Berlin, New York, London and Chicago. Given 2 of those places are in the US - how was German more liberal than the US?

And lets just say the Nazi party was not a fan of the community, so the people that lead the country towards the Nazi path hated homosexuality.

If you are trying to argue that due to a few people having more progressive values then the right-wing nutters reacted and there was a back lash, I can see that.

But I get the feeling your trying to tell us that it was those liberals that turned to the Nazi party. So those guys sitting in a bar in Berlin having a drink with his gay friends then goes off to Vote Hitler and the Nazi party - if that is you view then your credibility is shot.

Ed1wolf - every time we look into something you are saying we find a grain of truth followed by a load of utter rubbish. Your letting your world view lead the evidence rather than the evidence lead your world view.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Really? Which scripture says lying under such conditions is wrong, but deadly force under such conditions is okay?

The Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness." Just before Christ was arrested he told his disciples to buy a sword. This was for self defense in case the Romans tried to arrest them and execute them. It was only His time to be arrested and executed, it was not their time yet. They needed to remain alive to initiate the beginning of His Church.

 

[W2L]

The Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness." Just before Christ was arrested he told his disciples to buy a sword. This was for self defense in case the Romans tried to arrest them and execute them. It was only His time to be arrested and executed, it was not their time yet. They needed to remain alive to initiate the beginning of His Church.

I believe its God who saved the disciples so they could preach the Gospel. The apostles didn't actually carry arms, they had God as their protector.

 

[Ed1wolf]

So why did he create us with a natural desire to reject him, when he could have created us with a natural desire to embrace him?

He didn't create us with a natural desire to reject Him. We freely chose to reject Him.

 

[Ken-1122]

In what way?

His empathy is only for the Aryan race; mine is for all people. His logic and reason is aimed at what is best for the Aryan race, mine is for all people.

Do you think the USA and Britain did the right thing to fight him and destroy Nazi Germany? If so, why? Doesn't he have a right to live out his conclusions?

Hitler gave himself the right to attack USA, and Britain, and attempting to live out his conclusions, and the USA and Britain gave ourselves the right to defend ourselves by destroying Nazi Germany

But I can demonstrate it logically, they cannot.

Actually he pretty much used the same faulty logic you used; the only difference is your moral base is Yahweh, and his moral base was the improvement of mankind. Other than the different moral bases, it appears you both got your information from the same book.

Ok, then those are just your feelings not based on anything real. Someone should not be condemned just based on subjective feelings.

Legally, people are condemned by breaking the law; not moral issues.

No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.

Can you provide a scientist who claims modern man acts according to natural selection?