Hey, Atheists...

[zippy2006]

I don't rely on religious morality (although there is some overlap, such as the Golden Rule), so there's nothing to change for me. But how would it change for you?

I'm not going to try to further attempt to remedy your ignorance here. You're Dunning Krugered.

It's a soup bowl. How you use it is your decision.

Lol, k. This is that bizarre objectivism. Artifacts are magically soup bowls or bed pans by some intrinsic ontological quality.

Or do you think it's just a suggestion?

I'm glad you've admitted that you see it as a suggestion.

 

[Bradskii]

He treats it as a threat or obstacle. Just because he believes it is an obstacle for everyone does not mean he believes in the law.

I'm sorry, I can't treat that seriously. People who break into houses know that they're breaking the law. To say otherwise is to argue for the sake of arguing. And I'm not interested.

Just let me know if that girl should honour her father. Oh, and what you would do on the morning that religion disappeared from memory. How you know right from wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not going to try to further attempt to remedy your ignorance here.

My ignorance relates to how you would act if all religious memory disappeared. C'mon...enlighten me!

Lol, k. This is that bizarre objectivism. Artifacts are magically soup bowls or bed pans by some intrinsic ontological quality.

No, it was a soup bowl because you said you made it as a soup bowl. I can knock a nail in with a rock, but it's still a rock.

I'm glad you've admitted that you see it as a suggestion.

Please don't play games. I'm asking you if you should treat it as a suggestion. I know what it is. It's a commandment.

 

[BCP1928]

Moral relativism/subjectivism then. No wonder we have so much disagreement.

But then, religion is not an answer either, is it.
We have as much everybody does for themselves there also really.

I think we need moral standards that do not involve religions.

Religion is a command ethic, not morality at all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Discuss, debate, listen, be informed, argue...and try to agree to some sort of compromise.

Yes, those are the virtues and skills we do not possess. So we need a rule book with punishment if we err.

Except even then we can't get it right.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, those are the virtues and skills we do not possess. So we need a rule book with punishment if we err.

We need all those skills to agree what the rule book should be. Or rather to reach some sort of consensus on what it should be.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, those are the virtues and skills we do not possess. So we need a rule book with punishment if we err.

Except even then we can't get it right.

And yet the rule book is of no help in getting "it right".

 

[Bradskii]

And yet the rule book is of no help in getting "it right".

Maybe we should make that 'rule books'. There are a lot of them about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On the right hand side, no doubt. Which is a convention the the US. But if they'd decided to drive on the left then they might have found it tht it's also a law to keep to the right.

Actually, they decided to turn on their fuzz busters and drive us 90+ in a 65.... being that speed laws were, according to them, just social conventions "by definition."

I tried to talk them out of it, but they ignored me and chuckled.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And yet the rule book is of no help in getting "it right".

In fact we have conflicting rule books.
So we come up with laws and like them or not we must obey them or suffer the consequences (usually or should I say us common folks).
It seems like the wealthy often avoid such consequences even when convicted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tinker Grey said:


And yet the rule book is of no help in getting "it right".

I would not cite a good, solid scholarly book on the field of Ethics as a "rule book." The Bible isn't a "rule book" either for that matter.

I think we can dispense with all of this false imputation that the Christian faith is reducible to a mere essence of blind faith and naive spiritualized moralizing.

Christian faith, and the Ethos and Pathos that it expresses, is a part of a larger Worldview, and stands or falls in reasonable consilience with that Worldview. We all know that Christian morality isn't merely following rules or commands, but also ----- as the claims are presented in the New Testament writings ---- that true faith opens itself up to constant, ongoing moral and psychological renewal within one's mind and person. If we're Christian, we should, at the least, have a mindfulness toward striving to "be" better people who indeed want Goodness within ourselves.

 

[zippy2006]

So we need a rule book with punishment if we err.

A law (or rule book) is necessarily something that stands over us. That's how it binds us. If it did not stand over us then we would have no reason to heed it.

Now a law (or rule) never stands over us in itself (and this is where Bradskii errs). It can only stand over us in virtue of something else. Such things are generally related to the lawgiver, e.g., the power to punish, wisdom, concern, etc. Note that these are all parallel to parental qualities vis-a-vis their children. Children listen to their parents because their parents have the power to punish, because they have wisdom, because they are concerned for the child's wellbeing, etc.

The atheist is not barred from any of this, and a smart atheist will entrust himself to the orderings of more intelligent people. But another key way that a law can stand over us is via reason. Kant tries this route, but the social contractarians are probably more lucid. A social contract like Hobbes' appeals to reason and the survival instinct, and of course reason also has the power to bind.

 

[Bradskii]

A law (or rule book) is necessarily something that stands over us. That's how it binds us. If it did not stand over us then we would have no reason to heed it.

Like the Ten Commandments? So is that girl I mentioned bound by it? Would you be bound to it in the same situation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like the Ten Commandments? So is that girl I mentioned bound by it? Would you be bound to it in the same situation?

No. Like Jesus' Commandments.

I'm so glad we could reach this common conclusion and have a constructive dialogue like this, Bradskii.

 

[Bradskii]

No. Like Jesus' Commandments.

So the Ten Commandments aren't moral rules that Christians should obey? No commands from God? Just what Jesus was meant to have said?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So the Ten Commandments aren't moral rules that Christians should obey? No commands from God? Just what Jesus was meant to have said?

Really, the underlying issue ISN'T whether or not the Ten Commandments are "rules." Rather, the underlying issue is whether or not the Commandments of God represent a directive by which human beings are to comport with the created order God has made.

As Jesus is reported to have insisted among His disciples, the Law of God is to be "written on the heart" rather than simply engaged as mere set of moral concepts; and as Kierkegaard rightly drew out of the theological context of both human rationality and the New Testament principles, human beings are meant to be renovated and renewed by orienting themselves to God's Will in compliance with the recognition they should live within His moral order, over and against their inherent impulses to sin.

Moreover, from what we read in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus said it was important for His disciples to understand that God's Law was given with certain contexts in Mind, contexts that are apparently not easily grasped or agreed upon by those who claim to be "God's People." Take the directive of "eye-for-an-eye" as an example. Jesus contravened the meaning and intent by which people of His time tried to use the command and thereby excuse themselves from loving their own neighbors.

 

[Laodicean60]

The Ten Commandments are given to those stiff-necked Jews and apply to humanity. I believe they are moral rules that no one on earth can keep, at least not all of them. Even our thoughts are sinful so I/ maybe we biblically murder each other on these forums. The Ten Commandments were written to point to a better way, Jesus's work.
I don't think TC should be placed in schools unless given some history about it.

Since we have right and wrong written in our hearts why argue over Commandments?

 

[Bradskii]

Really, the underlying issue ISN'T whether or not the Ten Commandments are "rules."

It really is. We've been talking about the rules, or the laws, that Christians are meant to live by in the absence of any secular morality. And you can't get any more direct than the word of God given directly to the world. These aren't suggestions. These aren't interpretations of obscure biblical passages. They're not a guide to how we might live. They are literally commandments.

Are you going to decide whether you obey them or not?

 

[Bradskii]

But another key way that a law can stand over us is via reason. Kant tries this route, but the social contractarians are probably more lucid. A social contract like Hobbes' appeals to reason and the survival instinct, and of course reason also has the power to bind.

So you use reason to decide if the laws are valid. Or you accept them as they are simply because they are God's laws. There are no other options. This is my whole point, which you seen not to accept.

So again, does the girl have to honour her father? Or does she use reason to decide whether to or not?

 

[Robban]

Its better than nothing. But its a dogs morality.

Do you mean, whistle and the dog comes running, a pat on the head and a sugarlump on a good day.

No, it is not that kind of obedience, but more following the instructions,

"When all else fails follow the instructions."
................................................................................................................................................................
"Stop seeking perfection and start fixing the world."
(from a "daily dose" Tzvi Freeman)