Are Morals Relevant?

[Inkfingers]

On what grounds do I reject the claims of existence of gods...?

I did not mention gods.

Your statement was that you "feel perfectly comfortable in rejecting murder, rape, theft" and I asked you on what grounds you reject them.

On what grounds do I reject murder, etc...?

Again, on the simplest of grounds...I am a member of a species that has evolved in complex communities. That which best serves the community also serves the individuals within that society. It is very much in my personal interests to support a society in which those crimes are regarded as ‘bad’...

So your "rejection" of them is simply on the grounds of practicality in the service of yourself. Which means that you would engage in them if they became practical in your service. Hence the war crimes committed by neighbours upon each other when law collapses and opportunity arises.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hello.

Interesting. You do not accept unjustified beliefs so therefore all the beliefs you have must be justified.

I certainly strive to only accept as true those things that can be justified, yes.
Do I always succeed in that? Probably not. And when I fail, I welcome people pointing it out, so that I may alter my views and bring them in line with reason.

What are some examples of justified beliefs we christians should be aware of?

For a certain subset of christians, mainstream biology would be one.
Physics and chemistry another.

As for unfustified beliefs… well, honestly…. everything that requires "faith" (due to lack of actual evidence), is unjustified by definition.

What is your belief system, as it seems like the right one or most accurate?

I don't have a "belief" system in that sense.
I just follow the evidence. The word "belief", much like the word "faith", is kind of hijacked by theists in discussions like this. There is a LOT of baggage attached to it, to the point that when *I* use the words, I likely mean something very different as opposed to when theists use them.

Lawrence Krauss once said it very well imo, using these words in the "religious" sense:
"I don't believe anything. Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely. And the degree of certainty that comes with that, is directly proportional to the evidence in support of it, or the lack thereof".

 

[DogmaHunter]

A world view apart from the truth of Jesus Christ has no basis for morality

Nonsense.

The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil.

Nonsense.
In fact, I'ld say the exact opposite.
Secular morality can actually explain WHY it's wrong. Whereas the "divine morality" proponent can only say "because god says so".

The "morality" you refer to isn't morality at all. That's just obedience to a perceived authority.

The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Nonsense, again the exact opposite is true.
"god says so", is not a grounding nore a reasonable justification.
It is, again, just mere obedience.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

So, slavery is okay, genocide is fine, infanticide is fine, public stoning is a-okay, killing gays is okay, burning witches is okay,...………...

 

[DogmaHunter]

But on what grounds do you claim to reject them?

Social awareness, empathy, the realization that we live together in a cooperative society and that my decisions and actions have impact on other people and that if we are going to share this space, we have to recognise that impact.

You know: actual rational reasons. Instead of mere obedience to a perceived authority from the bronze age (that you can't even demonstrate to be actually real...)

 

[Inkfingers]

No amount of "testimony" can ever be enough to justifiably accept outlandish claims.

No amount of evidence can ever be enough for a willfully closed mind....one which one moment complains that accounts are not eye-witnesses and the next says that eye-witnesses cannot be trusted anyway.

No doubt you will (once more) try to claim this is not what you put, but anyone who wishes to read back will see otherwise.

 

[Inkfingers]

Social awareness, empathy, the realization that we live together in a cooperative society and that my decisions and actions have impact on other people and that if we are going to share this space, we have to recognise that impact.

You know: actual rational reasons. Instead of mere obedience to a perceived authority from the bronze age (that you can't even demonstrate to be actually real...)

Well, if its not real, why do you spend so much time hanging around the fringes of a site with a few of dozen active member discussing it in rooms you cannot join in on?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No amount of evidence can ever be enough for a willfully closed mind....

So, if I claim that yesterday I myself personally witnessed a guy named Bob fly (without using technology) and who has super powers like the mutants from X-men, you would simply believe me? You would not require any evidence for my eyewitness testimony? You wouldn't assume that I might be lying? You wouldn't assume that I might be mistaken about what I think to have witnessed? You wouldn't assume that I might have been hallucinating?

All three of these aren't more likely then this super-Bob guy actually existing????

The sheer fact that I claim to be an eyewitness and that I share my testimony is enough for you?

Really?
That is not being "open minded" by the way. That is being GULLIBLE.

"open minded" doesn't concern what you believe or not. It concerns wheter you are willing to evaluate claims based on their merrit and evidence.

I'm most certainly open minded. I'm willing to honestly consider ANY evidence you can share in support of your claims. Got any?

That I reject your claims on the basis that this evidence isn't forthcoming, doesn't make me closed minded. That just makes me rational and not gullible.

one which one moment complains that accounts are not eye-witnesses and the next says that eye-witnesses cannot be trusted anyway.

Here's a yes/no question...
Can a person be wrong about what he thinks to have seen?

No doubt you will (once more) try to claim this is not what you put, but anyone who wishes to read back will see otherwise.

Maybe you should take your own advice. It most definatly is not the only thing I said. I don't know how you missed the rest. I even gave examples of everything I was talking about… The guy Bob with laser beam shooting eyes, Jessica Alba that crawls out of the TV screen etc.

You seem to be COMPLETELY ignoring everything I said concerning the relation between the type of evidence I would require and the outlandishness of the claim that is being put forward.

I get it though… you don't wish to get into that, as it will put you with your back against the wall concerning your claims of miracles and resurections and what not.

 

[Ken-1122]

A world view apart from the truth of Jesus Christ has no basis for morality. The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil. The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

Perhaps it depends on how one defines morality. I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful to me and my neighbor is “good” and what is harmful to me and my neighbor is “bad”.

If you are unable to under the consequences of actions but instead must resort to an authority to understand how to react to such actions, you aren’t being moral, your authority/God is; you’re just being obedient. IOW you are nothing but an immoral person who is good at following directions. I’m better than that, and I suspect you are as well even if you don’t realize it right now.

 

[Allandavid]

I did not mention gods.

But I did...I mentioned a rejection of god claims AND a rejection of those anti-social behaviours you listed. So when you then asked on what grounds I reject “them”, I asked for clarity...

Your statement was that you "feel perfectly comfortable in rejecting murder, rape, theft" and I asked you on what grounds you reject them.

And I told you...

So your "rejection" of them is simply on the grounds of practicality in the service of yourself.

That isn’t what I told you...so now you are in the business of bearing false witness. Doesn’t your religion say something about that...?

Which means that you would engage in them if they became practical in your service. Hence the war crimes committed by neighbours upon each other when law collapses and opportunity arises.

How sad...

 

[Inkfingers]

That isn’t what I told you...so now you are in the business of bearing false witness. Doesn’t your religion say something about that...?

Your words:

"On what grounds do I reject murder, etc...?

Again, on the simplest of grounds...I am a member of a species that has evolved in complex communities. That which best serves the community also serves the individuals within that society. It is very much in my personal interests to support a society in which those crimes are regarded as ‘bad’..."

It is not I who are giving false witness of your words...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, if its not real, why do you spend so much time hanging around the fringes of a site with a few of dozen active member discussing it in rooms you cannot join in on?

Address the argument instead of the person.
My reasons for being here are not relevant nore do I owe you an explanation for that.

I just enjoy discussing things with people that believe different things then I do. Is that okay with you?

So, back to the subject. Do you actually have a relevant response to what I wrote?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your words:

"On what grounds do I reject murder, etc...?

Again, on the simplest of grounds...I am a member of a species that has evolved in complex communities. That which best serves the community also serves the individuals within that society. It is very much in my personal interests to support a society in which those crimes are regarded as ‘bad’..."

It is not I who are giving false witness of your words...

It's also in the best interest of every other member of the society.
In the best interest of the society as a whole, actually.

And yes, that includes ourselves as well.

Why is this a problem?

 

[cvanwey]

A world view apart from the truth of Jesus Christ has no basis for morality. The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil. The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

Let's evaluate your 'authoritative' statement of 'truth'. Let's do so by simply updating ONE name. Let's also see how the response holds the exact same claim, without even attempting to actually justify or 'prove' the the assertion just made. When I can do so, by simply changing the one name, this demonstrates how your statement actually carries little to no evidentiary basis. It is a blank assertion, baseless, and ending exactly right where you started.

Without further ado, your quote below, as stated instead by a Muslim:

A world view apart from the truth of Muhammad has no basis for morality. The one who rejects the truth of God has no grounds to say that murder, rape, theft, lying, is evil. The one who rejects God has no grounds on which to claim something as good.

Morals are not relevant. Morals are absolute, and they are defined from the source of all truth, honor and glory, and that is God.

************

My point? Your argument is perfectly circular. You are using the 'moral argument' in an attempt to prove the very same God you are attempting to prove.

So until you can demonstrate ANY proof of your specific believed God, your entire response carries little value.

So As I stated in the OP, please demonstrate 'truth' of the resurrection claim. I'll start simply....

1 Corinthians 15:6 (i.e.) 'After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep,' is from hearsay; no eyewitness testimony or corroboration. I also claim Matthew 27:52 is from hearsay (i.e.) 'and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life', and not actual eyewitness testimony. These two claims alone are an attempt to vouch for 100's, if not thousands of witnesses seeing the supernatural. And yet, when one evaluates such claims with ANY scrutiny, these claims live and die by the very verses read, with no corroboration or evidence of their specific merit or claims?.?.? Using my own 'flawed' logic, I then have no choice but to honestly discard such claims, due to lack in evidence and corroboration of these very specific assertions. No one wrote about seeing a resurrection or dead zombies wondering the streets outside the Bible. This is bazaar?

Now please validate and demonstrate 1 Corinthians 15:14, which states 'And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.' And please do so by abiding by your own belief in 1 Peter 3:15, (i.e.) 'Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.'

I'm not even going to ask for the rest of the verse, which I did not include, which states 'with gentleness and respect.'

And yes, I'm asking you to appeal to your own sense of what you feel, is an absolute moral foundation, the Bible. And yes, I have doubt it is actually validated, as I highly doubt you will be able to account for it's claimed validation, via actual eyewitness testimony.

Thanks

 

[Allandavid]

Your words:

"On what grounds do I reject murder, etc...?

Again, on the simplest of grounds...I am a member of a species that has evolved in complex communities. That which best serves the community also serves the individuals within that society. It is very much in my personal interests to support a society in which those crimes are regarded as ‘bad’..."

It is not I who are giving false witness of your words...

Yes, you bore false witness. I did not “simply” state that it was “in service of myself”. I mentioned an advantage to BOTH the society as a whole and the individual within it...

Do try to be honest. I realise that you are on the losing end of an argument, but integrity still counts for something...

 

[ananda]

The Gospels are typical history of their day. People widely believe in Muhammed or Buddha based on less documentation.

The difference being that Christianity & Islam are founded based on the true, physical existence and historicity of their founders' lives, whereas early Buddhism does not require this.

 

[FireDragon76]

The difference being that Christianity & Islam are founded based on the true, physical existence and historicity of their founders' lives, whereas early Buddhism does not require this.

In northern India in the late ancient period, the Buddha's existence and trustworthiness was part of the typical religious epistemology.

To be a be a Buddhist and to not believe in the historical existence of the Buddha sounds more than a bit like self-indulgent solipsism, honestly.

 

[redleghunter]

If you as a believer tell me what you believe and I then proceed to write that down....

Why does this just apply to a 'believer?' Would this not also apply to a commander of a Roman centuria giving accounts of a battle?

Then I am not an eyewitness, nore am I an independend source on the subject.
Instead, I am just repeating what you, the believer, told me.

Let's tidy the above up a bit. A historian takes accounts from eyewitnesses and writes them down. Doesn't matter if they were 'believers' in Jesus of Nazareth or of Emperor Claudius (who received worship as Emperor as well).

Therefore, in either case above, someone, later known as a historian is taking down accounts of people who were directly involved with events. Meaning an eyewitness. Which means that is how we received, and by extension through the manuscript record, most of our history from antiquity and probably up until the Industrial Revolution (19th Century).

So I'm just repeating claims. Repeating a claim, does not add credibility to said claim.

Well, when a historian has only 10 eyewitness accounts they probably don't record an event as 'happening" or the very least they might say there are reports of X and then caveat the level of confidence. However, when the historical event has hundreds, or thousands or even 10s of thousands the credibility rises and they are more confident in what they are recording.

Also, please address on what you would consider an "independent" source within the Roman empire of 1st century AD? You have not explained that one yet.

 

[redleghunter]

According to my 'flawed' knowledge, and based upon the 'flawed' evidence, Moses never existed. So by who's standard can we hash this out? Did Moses exist, did Moses not exist? Until you can demonstrate otherwise, without appealing to a human written book (the Bible itself), you are appealing to your 'own' 'flawed' logic, that the Bible obtains pure fact We all only have our brains to assess 'reality.' You possess no better means than I. Ancient people possessed no better assessment capabilities than you or I.

This is exactly my point!

Is it your position we can 'know nothing?' My assessment is nihilism has invaded your very own thought processes. It is not enough for the nihilist to say "life has no meaning" but now to claim "any information from the past has no meaning."

If so then you should probably demand every university close down its history and philosophy depts. I would also extend that to paleontology and anthropology. While we are at it let's torpedo the other social sciences as the SJW courses and gender studies courses. Because we just know as flawed human beings what we are even doing now will be flawed and there is no standard in which to judge anything.

 

[redleghunter]

I have conversed with people of other religions whom claim ample 'evidence' of the supernatural. And I have also read about many unsolved mysteries of mass UFO sightings... I can provide the documented unsolved examples if so needed.... If I was to believe all claimed eyewitness testimony and all claimed anecdotal tales, especially written from long ago, I would have to be pretty darn gullible. I assess each claim, based upon how well it actually stacks up against the provided available evidence.

You used this example before. And as I answered before? When aliens and Mohammad start walking on water, feed thousands at one time with a few loaves of bread and fish, raise the dead and then when dead themselves rise from the dead three days later, ping me. I ask you fully digest what I wrote to you before hitting me up with the usual skeptic red herrings.

 

[redleghunter]

When I read the Bible, many claims do not align with known and shared reality (at least from my acknowledged 'flawed' logic and reason).

You mean the miracles? And you probably conclude miracles just don't happen so anyone even thousands witnessing the supernatural must be wrong because miracles just don't happen.

Did I summarize your view correctly above?