How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

R.J. Aldridge said:

Does the belt hold the pants in place or do the pants hold the belt in place? Both are true because together they represent a unified concept. When God accesses morality, He accesses Himself, because morality is derived from Himself. He is the source.

Click to expand...

No, you have made a common logical error. But, it doesn't really matter, the god of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament permits, condones, and engages in what would be immorality if done by people. Also, people do commit acts of immorality upon other humans and humans think their god watches this and decides to withhold assistance. No, some will say, he sent Jesus. But that isn't good news for a child who has stage 4 cancer today. It simply make no rational sense.

R.J. Aldridge said:

In a fictional story, there is a narrative. The actions taken by the fictional characters are justified or unjustified by the rules and context of that narrative. The bible, fantasy or not, has a narrative, and the characters are justified or unjustified by the rules and context of that narrative. It's not as simplistic as saying killing children is immoral, God commands people to kill children, therefore God is immoral. The death of anyone at the hands of another must be judged by the context. This is why we have courts to judge the "why" of an action and not just the what. If someone wants to go and claim that bible believers believe it is okay to kill children, they are wrong and they need to exercise a better hermeneutic.

Click to expand...

You tell me when killing a child is moral. You claimed it is not simple--please provide me and the readers of this thread an example when killing a child is a moral act. If this is faith-based logic, I want to be a thousand miles away from it.

R.J. Aldridge said:

"Lives of their own." Whether we like it or not, in a theistic context, what ownership do we have.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't live in a world with a theistic context. That only happens in the minds of people. There is no theistic fiction that can make the immoral moral. The god of the Bible exists in the pages of text--I have no reason to think human morality is the least bit objectively determined by that character or any god in any other religious text. Humans negotiate our own morality--Christians included.

grasping the after wind said:

I don't think one can ever be absolutely sure of anything. One does their best to discern what is true and hope one succeeds much more than one fails. There is no need to be absolutely certain of what is true when deciding if one is lying. If what one says is not true and one knows it , then one is lying. Even if one is mistaken about the facts and is actually saying something truthful while thinking it is false. The moral problem IMO is not recognizing that one is lying but being open to convincing oneself that the lie is justifiable. The person that does not recognize they are not telling the truth but believes that what they are saying is true , though it is , in reality, false, is not lying. They are simply
wrong not deceitful.

Click to expand...

There are lots of things that I am absolutely certain about, I know when I am being truthful, and I know when I am being dishonest; even though I may occasionally be mistaken.

grasping the after wind said:

You seemed to imply that with the statement below. Perhaps I inferred it unfairly?

Ken-1122 said: ↑
I don’t believe people make moral judgments like; “X is wrong”, they address scenarios that involve “X” and judge it wrong or not.

Click to expand...

That was in reference to how I believe most people judge; not you.

grasping the after wind said:

Yes I judge the behavior to be less than morally upright based upon the fact that I see lying as morally wrong.

Click to expand...

No; I’m asking if you see them as equally wrong. IOW do you perceive some wrongs to be worse than others.
Let’s try another one; suppose in Nazi Germany the Gestapo knocked on your door asking if you knew where any Jews were hiding, and you knew the neighbors were hiding a family in their attic, would you consider telling the truth the right thing to do in this circumstance? Or would you consider lying to the Gestapo thus saving innocent lives the right thing to do.

Caliban said:

No, you have made a common logical error. But, it doesn't really matter, the god of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament permits, condones, and engages in what would be immorality if done by people.

Click to expand...

There is no logical error. God defines what is good based upon His nature. And if there are any examples where the God of the bible contradicts His own nature, as described in the bible, please be specific. Also, humans do not carry moral authority in the bible that is not given by God. We can recognize morality and align ourselves with it, but we do not have the same legal rights as God does in the same way that vigilantes, despite their moral intentions, do not carry legal authority in the same way law enforcement does.

You tell me when killing a child is moral. You claimed it is not simple--please provide me and the readers of this thread an example when killing a child is a moral act. If this is faith-based logic, I want to be a thousand miles away from it.

Click to expand...

Wow. I sympathize with the emotional sentiment you expressed. I am pro-life. I don't like defending the killing of anyone, except for obvious reasons. If a child is an existential threat to others, sometimes their death is justified. It isn't something to be happy about. There are plenty of soldiers who had to kill children because they were being used as human bombs intent on killing them. Anyone happy about that is messed up. We can hate it, I hope we all hate it, but situations exist where morality is not simple.

There is no theistic fiction that can make the immoral moral.

Click to expand...

Agreed. "How terrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute what is bitter for what is sweet and what is sweet for what is bitter!"(Isaiah 5:20)

Caliban said:

That's not true. The whole point of the dilemma is to demonstrate the incongruity between morality and the proposed existence for a god or gods. If you have solved this problem, I'd like to hear it.

Click to expand...

No, actually the Euthyphro Dilemma is contingent upon the supposed assumption of MORE THAN ONE GOD.

Eat it. Digest it.

Caliban said:

That's not true. The whole point of the dilemma is to demonstrate the incongruity between morality and the proposed existence for a god or gods. If you have solved this problem, I'd like to hear it.

Click to expand...

Y'know, I notice that for just about every comment I make, you deny it. And frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of the charade your pushing, Caliban. (And yes, as I've said elsewhere, I'm aware of the literary allusions your moniker implies ... And the stripes and gun don't help your cover any either).

R.J. Aldridge said:

There is no logical error. God defines what is good based upon His nature.

Click to expand...

Well that just explains everything.

R.J. Aldridge said:

If a child is an existential threat to others, sometimes their death is justified. It isn't something to be happy about. There are plenty of soldiers who had to kill children because they were being used as human bombs intent on killing them. Anyone happy about that is messed up. We can hate it, I hope we all hate it, but situations exist where morality is not simple.

Click to expand...

That is obvious and not at all what we are really discussing. In the Bible, children are killed indiscriminately and not for the reasons you mentioned. How is it justified when the Hebrews smash the heads of children in Psalms 137:9 or when God commanded the death of Amalekite infants and children in 1 Samuel 15:3. According to what you say--these are moral acts. Obviously I disagree strongly. This cannot represent a moral worldview no matter how a person tries to twist and massage it.

2PhiloVoid said:

Y'know, I notice that for just about every comment I make, you deny it. And frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of the charade your pushing, Caliban. (And yes, as I've said elsewhere, I'm aware of the literary allusions your moniker implies ... And the stripes and gun don't help your cover any either).

Click to expand...

Your frustration can easily be handled by not engaging with me. The fact that you do is not my fault. I don't know why you would be so tired of simple words on an Internet forum. It is simple, give a better argument or don't worry about it at all. Besides, I'm not denying, I am providing a different opinion--do you just want me to agree with you?

Caliban said:

That is obvious and not at all what we are really discussing. In the Bible, children are killed indiscriminately and not for the reasons you mentioned. How is it justified when the Hebrews smash the heads of children in Psalms 137:9 or when God commanded the death of Amalekite infants and children in 1 Samuel 15:3. According to what you say--these are moral acts. Obviously I disagree strongly. This cannot represent a moral worldview no matter how a person tries to twist and massage it.

Click to expand...

Psalms 137:9 doesn't say what you think it says. The psalmist experienced foreign invaders destroy Jerusalem, kill its citizens, and take others captive to a foreign land. The captors then demand that they sing a song of joy about Jerusalem, the city that was just destroyed. The psalmist responds, Daughter of Babylon! You devastator! How blessed will be the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
How blessed will be the one who seizes your young children and pulverizes them against the cliff!(Psalms 137:8-9). Imagine if Nazi soldiers asked a jew to sing a happy song about their homeland. They might respond by saying, you want happiness, I'll tell you what would really make me happy... I am not saying this to justify the imagery, I am simply pointing out that the psalmist is rightfully angry, and what he wrote was an emotional desire for some kind of justice.

And as far as the Amalekites go, these were horrible people that God wanted to blot out since Exodus 17. These were enemies of Israel, enemies of God, and if Israel was to ever live in peace, Amalek and his descendants needed to be dealt with completely, or they would continue to be a thorn in Israel's side.

R.J. Aldridge said:

And as far as the Amalekites go, these were horrible people that God wanted to blot out since Exodus 17. These were enemies of Israel, enemies of God, and if Israel was to ever live in peace, Amalek and his descendants needed to be dealt with completely, or they would continue to be a thorn in Israel's side.

Click to expand...

Abraham Lincoln once asked "have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?" What's the worse that could happen if instead of God having them killed, he took away their freewill and made them friends of Israel?

Caliban said:

Your frustration can easily be handled by not engaging with me. The fact that you do is not my fault. I don't know why you would be so tired of simple words on an Internet forum. It is simple, give a better argument or don't worry about it at all. Besides, I'm not denying, I am providing a different opinion--do you just want me to agree with you?

Click to expand...

No, I want what you want: a clear, expansive, deliberate, and completely researched explanation to be given as either a response or as an answer.

What I get tired of, and what many of you skeptics here on CF do, is rely on obfuscation, flat-out denial, and other rhetorical tactics of "refusal," usually those laced with certain political objectives and/or reasons. And those I will not abide.

2PhiloVoid said:

No, I want what you want: a clear, expansive, deliberate, and completely researched explanation to be given as either a response or as an answer.

What I get tired of, and what many of you skeptics here on CF do, is rely on obfuscation, flat-out denial, and other rhetorical tactics of "refusal," usually those laced with certain political objectives and/or reasons. And those I will not abide.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have done any of the negative thing you accuse me of. I am here for discussion, but I am also not wordy--I use words economically. If you look at my posts and responses I get straight to the point. I am not sure what you mean by expansive, but that may not be something I am interested in. I am all for exploring the details of a topic.

Let's talk about denial since you accuse me of it. What true thing have I denied? If I criticize a fact, show me I am wrong--I will change by mind. I am a person who is highly open to having my opinions changed--I need real facts though--not philosophy and assertion. If you are going to accuse someone of obfuscation, denial and refusal, try providing actual examples of this. Accusations without evidence is just foot stopping and helps no one.

R.J. Aldridge said:

Psalms 137:9 doesn't say what you think it says.

Click to expand...

I don't see how your explanation solves the moral problem. I clearly understand the predicament of the Hebrews having to entertain their captors--I get the context. The problem remains--blessings come from God, the song invokes the blessing of immoral retribution:

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Assuming God is Omniscient and Omnipotent (or maximally if you prefer), he could have ameliorated this problem without harm to children. Can we agree that adults, not children, are the problem here. I does not good to suggest these kids would grow up to commit evil acts or to perpetuate the captivity of the Hebrews--God could stop all that with a hand wave. Instead, the people are inspired to sing of the utter destruction of children and of God who would bless the Hebrews for smashing them on the rocks.

Here is my point: this book was clearly composed by humans without any input from a deity. The Hebrew people experienced tragedy on a large scale and their songs contain the normal human emotions of retribution and a compromised sense of justice. The Psalm 137 makes sense from a human perspective. But it does not make sense originating from a perfectly moral being. It clearly isn't.

Caliban said:

I don't think I have done any of the negative thing you accuse me of. I am here for discussion, but I am also not wordy--I use words economically. If you look at my posts and responses I get straight to the point. I am not sure what you mean by expansive, but that may not be something I am interested in. I am all for exploring the details of a topic.

Let's talk about denial since you accuse me of it. What true thing have I denied? If I criticize a fact, show me I am wrong--I will change by mind. I am a person who is highly open to having my opinions changed--I need real facts though--not philosophy and assertion. If you are going to accuse someone of obfuscation, denial and refusal, try providing actual examples of this. Accusations without evidence is just foot stopping and helps no one.

Click to expand...

The "true thing" you've denied is the point I made that the WHOLE of the Euthyphro Dilemma is firmly contingent upon the nature of the argument within that dilemma. The point that you've denied is that the dilemma is only applicable to situations of ethical analysis involving POLY-THEISM.

Yes, this IS specifically what you've denied, as most skeptics have done here on CF over the last several years. And I'm here to clear the air on that point!

You guys no longer get to promote that idea; and neither do Christians (from any age) get to be removed from the scathing analysis I'll more than gladly provide step-by-painful-hermeneutical-step.

Of course, we might need to create a separate thread for that discussion extravaganza!

2PhiloVoid said:

That point that you've denied is that the dilemma is only applicable to situations of ethical analysis involving POLY-THEISM.

Click to expand...

I think this is where our conversation is breaking down. I do not think Euthyphro is only applicable to "situations of ethical analysis involving POLY-THEISM." That just isn't my position.

2PhiloVoid said:

The "true thing" you've denied is the point I made that the WHOLE of the Euthyphro Dilemma is firmly contingent upon the nature of the argument within that dilemma

Click to expand...

This is another part of the problem--I don't know what that sentence means. I understand the meaning of each individual word, but the think you are trying to say/communicate is lost in opaque language. I'm sure you know what you intend to say, but it isn't coming across. Just please be more clear and specific. It will help all parties understand the other.

2PhiloVoid said:

You guys no longer get to promote that idea; and neither do Christians (from any age) get to be removed from the scathing analysis I'll more than gladly provide step-by-painful-hermeneutical-step.

Click to expand...

Again, I can't agree or disagree with what you wrote because it just isn't clear. I am understanding something about your willingness to provide "us" with a calling analysis--of something--hermeneutics maybe. Look, I am here for a conversation about all things religious, and specifically Christian; if I wanted to dodge or evade your ideas/comment/remarks I just wouldn't be here where I am in the minority.

Caliban said:

I think this is where our conversation is breaking down. I do not think Euthyphro is only applicable to "situations of ethical analysis involving POLY-THEISM." That just isn't my position.


This is another part of the problem--I don't know what that sentence means. I understand the meaning of each individual word, but the think you are trying to say/communicate is lost in opaque language. I'm sure you know what you intend to say, but it isn't coming across. Just please be more clear and specific. It will help all parties understand the other.



Again, I can't agree or disagree with what you wrote because it just isn't clear. I am understanding something about your willingness to provide "us" with a calling analysis--of something--hermeneutics maybe. Look, I am here for a conversation about all things religious, and specifically Christian; if I wanted to dodge or evade your ideas/comment/remarks I just wouldn't be here where I am in the minority.

Click to expand...

I understand. In this understanding of mine, I'll just offer up the opportunity to delve into the nuances of the dilemma in the new thread I just created ...

2PhiloVoid said:

I understand. In this understanding of mine, I'll just offer up the opportunity to delve into the nuances of the dilemma in the new thread I just created ...

Click to expand...

I would like to dig in to the Euthyphro, there is more I can learn about it. An interesting point is that is was not originally about morality of a god(s), but piety.

Ken-1122 said:

Abraham Lincoln once asked "have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?" What's the worse that could happen if instead of God having them killed, he took away their freewill and made them friends of Israel?

Click to expand...

While I agree that diplomacy seems logical and wise against the backdrop of bloodshed, taking away their freewill is not a moral way to do it. If there was a passage in the bible where God forced people against their will to work for Him rather than against Him, there would still be people, who's freewill remains intact, criticizing God for His forced enslavement of the mind. It all comes down to what God created humans for. He created us so that He could partner with us, sharing His attributes with us in a way that we can not only see and experience them, but also possess them and have stewardship of them to a certain extent. This is what is meant by the Him creating us in His image. Therefore, I would say that a forced friendship does not allow humans to reflect God, it is not what God wants. If there is to be peace between the tribes, God would want it to be real and as a result of His image bearers accurately reflecting Him.

Caliban said:

I would like to dig in to the Euthyphro, there is more I can learn about it. An interesting point is that is was not originally about morality of a god(s), but piety.

Click to expand...

At the time of the Euthyphro dilemma these people were using Gods the same way that theists do today. Their polytheists could and would have asked atheists among them the very same question as the OP.

Atheists among them would have given you the same answers as Atheists today. The answer is simple. The Gods they spoke of (made up) didn't define their goodness then as they do not now, humans do.

Caliban said:

Here is my point: this book was clearly composed by humans without any input from a deity. The Hebrew people experienced tragedy on a large scale and their songs contain the normal human emotions of retribution and a compromised sense of justice. The Psalm 137 makes sense from a human perspective. But it does not make sense originating from a perfectly moral being. It clearly isn't.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that this psalm is composed from a human perspective, and because of that, I am not sure it is accurate to blame God for the imagery. Yes, I do believe it to be inspired, but I have no reason to think that this represents an action taken by God, it is simply a brutally honest reaction to very real experiences.

In other passages where God does decree the death of children, we can agree that children of evil parents do not necessarily grow up to be evil themselves. This is not a statement that God is trying to make and it is not the reason the children were put to death. Unfortunately we tend to see things through our modern day, post-enlightenment, 21st century western cultural lens, which is very much not the culture in which the bible was written. These were standard practices in ancient near eastern warfare, and as backwards as it may seem to us, children were often killed because it is the children that receive the inheritance of the family line, and when the ultimate punishment is the end of a family line, such as the family of Amalek, if the children live, the family line lives. Sometimes in the bible we see certain tribes that are so evil that God will not allow their family line to continue.

I am not trying to rationalize the problem, I am simply trying to input some cultural context. The OT reads like it is Yahweh against the other gods, and if you ask why God would choose to do warfare in this way as opposed to showing them a better way, all I can do is speculate. Perhaps God wanted to show His supremacy over the gods in a way that the people of that culture would understand the best.

Ken-1122 said:

That was in reference to how I believe most people judge; not you.

Click to expand...

In reference to this statement.
Ken-1122 said: ↑
I don’t believe people make moral judgments like; “X is wrong”, they address scenarios that involve “X” and judge it wrong or not.

If one states categorically that one doesn't believe people make moral judgements in one particular way, then I do not see how that could possibly mean something other than all people. Therefore when I have already said that I do use that particular method to make moral judgements, I would logically conclude that I am being accused of dishonesty. If you meant something different, I ought not be expected to read your mind. If you meant to exclude me from the universe of people how and why would I infer that from what you wrote?

Ken-1122 said:

No; I’m asking if you see them as equally wrong. IOW do you perceive some wrongs to be worse than others.
Let’s try another one; suppose in Nazi Germany the Gestapo knocked on your door asking if you knew where any Jews were hiding, and you knew the neighbors were hiding a family in their attic, would you consider telling the truth the right thing to do in this circumstance? Or would you consider lying to the Gestapo thus saving innocent lives the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

Yes I perceive a hierarchy of wrong. I perceive murder to be worse than shoplifting for instance.
As for your example. Since I would perceive helping a murderer to find people to murder worse than lying, I would commit the immoral act of lying to attempt to avoid committing the worse immoral act of abetting murderers. Even though there is a very high possibility my lie will not change the final result. The option I would take would be to act clueless and spineless and pretend to wish sincerely I had information that would help them. This might not work but it would be what I see as the most likely lie to be useful for what I am trying to accomplish. Simply saying No would probably not be believed. The thing is in this situation there are no paths to being somewhat moral so I pick the path where one is only doing something of a lesser immoral act than a greater one. Nonetheless the lying that I would be doing would still be immoral IMO. It is not like one is capable of absolute moral uprightness. I don't judge an act moral because of its consequences, I consider that I will do immoral things because of the consequences. I have accepted the fact that life is not a matter of never acting immorally and have rejected the need to see myself as righteous in all that I do.

Ken-1122 said:

Abraham Lincoln once asked "have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?" What's the worse that could happen if instead of God having them killed, he took away their freewill and made them friends of Israel?

Click to expand...

Seems to me it was the Army of the Republic that annihilated Lincoln's enemies and they never became his friends. To your question though, 1) As a Christian, I consider deciding what is better to be God's prerogative not mine. 2) We can ignore that first point completely when discussing morality and leave religion totally out of it for matter of discussion with atheists as God has no place in any atheist's thoughts on morality. 3) Why do you prefer life to liberty? Not everyone does. The term "live free or die." is a sincere one for many people. The lyric " If I die in Raleigh at least I will die free." and the sentence "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" resonate with many people. 3) That being the case, why should any god think taking away people's independent ability to make their own choices was worse than killing them? I know if I were given the choice between dying and being controlled by some entity other than myself I would much rather be dead.