Hey, Atheists...

[Jo555]

Found some time now.
Sure, in the first degree, second degree, third degree.

Or, the difference between negligence, passion, and intent.

Bible speaks of this too.

Think i lost my last message so going to repeat. I don't see it. It is very short

Let me know if my wordyness (I make up words too) confused you. I can condense if you like.

Thanks for sharing, from down under.

Going to go ahead and condense.

For the believer it is all about the heart. This is what the gospel has always pointed us to.

Morality is a faculty of the natural man. It influences the conscience. The law was a temp measure due to our awakened conscience of good and evil at the fall. Yes, it influences conscience.

For the believer we are called to walk in the Spirit. This has nothing to do with the natural man for the natural man cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit. They are foolishness to Him.

Oh man. So much for short.

Keep it simple mate. The simpler it is the clearer we see because it really is simple for the believer. The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

And even if we are well intended doesn't mean our heart is connected to his, but that is the start.

Morality is a forest and there are so many twists and turns and grey areas, many well intended people, but we can all fall victim to that if we don't have a grasp of the simplicity, and instead be led by knowledge and conscience.

And better to have knowledge of God and conscience, rather than total depravity, and we did eat of the wrong tree in the garden, so it is something even the believer is still contending with while we grow in God's love; being perfected in it. It can still serve a believer too, imo, but we are not to serve it.

We are now to serve in the new way, in the Spirit gifted to every believer through Christ. He leads us by the love of God.

Seems I can't do short on this one.

Just remember. Simple. Very simple, and you won't get lost. Fly like an eagle. Sharp vision in simplicity.

That's all I kept thinking watching the game last night. Fly and soar baby, go!
Keep that sharp vision.

Don't get lost.
Trust me, on both sides of the fence that can happen. If you can't reel others in, you have to reel yourself in

But it can be an education learning the dynamics of human behavior, including philosophy, psychology...i love that stuff, just know when it boils down to it, for the believer it is simple.

Ok, think I'm really done now. Carry on.

 

[Bradskii]

Be quiet 24601.

Hey, no prompting!

 

[Jo555]

Going to go ahead and condense.

For the believer it is all about the heart. This is what the gospel has always pointed us to.

Morality is a faculty of the natural man. It influences the conscience. The law was a temp measure due to our awakened conscience of good and evil at the fall. Yes, it influences conscience.

For the believer we are called to walk in the Spirit. This has nothing to do with the natural man for the natural man cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit. They are foolishness to Him.

Oh man. So much for short.

Keep it simple mate. The simpler it is the clearer we see because it really is simple for the believer. The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

And even if we are well intended doesn't mean our heart is connected to his, but that is the start.

Morality is a forest and there are so many twists and turns and grey areas, many well intended people, but we can all fall victim to that if we don't have a grasp of the simplicity, and instead be led by knowledge and conscience.

And better to have knowledge of God and conscience, rather than total depravity, and we did eat of the wrong tree in the garden, so it is something even the believer is still contending with while we grow in God's love; being perfected in it. It can still serve a believer too, imo, but we are not to serve it.

We are now to serve in the new way, in the Spirit gifted to every believer through Christ. He leads us by the love of God.

Seems I can't do short on this one.

Just remember. Simple. Very simple, and you won't get lost. Fly like an eagle. Sharp vision in simplicity.

That's all I kept thinking watching the game last night. Fly and soar baby, go!
Keep that sharp vision.

Don't get lost.
Trust me, on both sides of the fence that can happen. If you can't reel others in, you have to reel yourself in

But it can be an education learning the dynamics of human behavior, including philosophy, psychology...i love that stuff, just know when it boils down to it, for the believer it is simple.

Ok, think I'm really done now. Carry on.

Shoo, have one more.

There are probably a lot of well intended people on this side of the fence, those that don't have a twisted hidden agenda, and we can fall victims to that on both sides of the fence.

I mean when I see all the guilt and condemnation on this site it breaks my heart that they don't get it and are living depressed and defeated.

You have to be quite depraved for that not to touch your heart, but you know that overall the atheist aee the problem as a silly notion of God...do correct me if I'm wrong, but the real issue is that we are still eating from the wrong tree trying to be like God.

Another thing believers miss is that we are not called to a rahab program. We are called to acknowledge, and even boast in our weaknesses so that the power of God can move and be evident in us so no flesh boast in his glory.

Remember, He choose the foolish things to confound the wise. We'll get there in Him once our egos are set aside and we put our trust in Him

Ok. Hopefully I'm done now. If this becomes out of context in this thread, feel free to send me a private message if you'd like.

 

[partinobodycular]

But let's take stealing. Do you think it's possible for me to give you an example of stealing which you think is morally right?

Personally, I think that ALL stealing can be morally justified. My right to flourish is just as valid as your right to flourish, and the only thing that can possibly usurp that right is my willingness to relinquish it for the good of others.

If there are times when I choose not to, then it's not within your authority to judge me for it.

 

[Bradskii]

Personally, I think that ALL stealing can be morally justified. My right to flourish is just as valid as your right to flourish, and the only thing that can possibly usurp that right is my willingness to relinquish it for the good of others.

If there are times when I choose not to, then it's not within your authority to judge me for it.

PM me your address and I'll be round later with a pick up truck to take your stuff. If you object to my right to flourish then I won't judge you for it. But I'll still take your stuff.

 

[partinobodycular]

PM me your address and I'll be round later with a pick up truck to take your stuff. If you object to my right to flourish then I won't judge you for it. But I'll still take your stuff.

You need to think this through. The fact that I think that you're morally justified in stealing from me doesn't mean that I'm obligated to let you. Remember, my right to flourish is just as valid as your right to flourish.

We as a society find it acceptable for some people to flourish while other people languish. Why do we do that? And so long as we do, we justify their right to choose their own morality.

 

[Bradskii]

You need to think this through. The fact that I think that you're morally justified in stealing from me doesn't mean that I'm obligated to let you. Remember, my right to flourish is just as valid as your right to flourish.

Well, when you find some people who are quite willing to have all their stuff stolen (as opposed to giving it away to worthy causes) then maybe we could have an interesting discussion about how insanely odd that would be. Otherwise we'll stick to the concept of stealing being generally considered as not such a great idea for society as a whole. Notwithstanding Valjean and others who may have a niece or two who are hanging out for a sandwich.

 

[stevevw]

A whole sequence of responses where you toss out the premises of the things you are responding to and just pave right over them, usually changing the specific topic. It's like you pick a few words out of what was written and then construct a response based only on your interpretation of those terms with little to no regard for the context of the text or question you are responding to. Argh.

How can that be. My first reply was to your claim that atheism is not a metaphysical belef or worldview. I was arguing against it by saying evidence shows even atheist based their position on belief.

I'm not going to go through the rest but each section was a reply to your claims. I addressed them one by one. The interesting thing is you did not address my replies or the evidence.

Now to reply to your mangling of "secular" and "objective"

Secular is literally "non-religious" that's what I just told you in the sentence you were replying to. Do you not read the things we post fully before replying? Do you think I am just using one of those "atheist definitions" (or whatever) that you can ignore because it comes from the wrong "worldview". This is extremely frustrating. Not even a counter definition based on a reference. Good Grief!

You are doing the same. Where have I said that secular is a religion. You are not reading my replies yourself. Either that or your creating a strawman as I never argued that secular is a religion.

Perhaps your confusing my saying that even secularists hold metaphysical beliefs in transcendent ideas. Thats not religion in the traditional sense but nevertheless its a belief like religion. So any claim that secular is not religion as far as belief is concerned is wrong.

Let's go over it for the 49th time:

Secular (in the usage relative to this discussion, this board, and this topic) is an adjective describing things that are not religious. You can substitute "non-religious" every time you see "secular" in front of a noun.

Secular music = non-religious music (you know, the good stuff)
Secular lilterature = non-religious literature
Secular architecture = non-religious architecture (homes and office buildings etc, rather than churches)
Secular morality = non-religious morality.

The one thing SECULAR ABSOLUTELY IS NOT is "religion".

Secular is not a noun. This a mess tangled in your bad definition.

Your spending a lot of time creating a strawman when I never said secular was religion. I said it contains metaphysical beliefs in transcendent ideas that are like religious belief in the transcedent. Except its not regarded as religion. But it does the same thing as religion. Fills in that metaphysical void about whats beyond what we see.

Neither Sam Harris nor science is "transendent". "Secular" is not "something transcendent"; it is a label for thing that are non-religious.

Then we have a problem. Because what is classed as secular society, the one that is not religion,just about every person within that is classed as being secular to represent secular society also holds a metaphysical belif that transcends the material world in some way.

Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in science is an attempt at grounding morals in some transcedent basis. Using science as the true measure of morality is philosophy and not science. Its a metaphysical belief that morals are grounded in materialism as opposed to some immaterial aspect.

The issue here is not the "is-ought' problem.

Both religious and non-religious people can have subjective (and if possible at all) objective bases for morality.

Not objective morality beyond human beliefs and opinions. All humans can have subjective morality. But they cannot have objective morality unless they can ground it in something not human.

So in some ways because morality cannot be grounded in material science any attempt to make morality objective is appealing to a transcedent basis.

Scriptures and gods are not objective foundations, they are subjective. It is a subjective choice to select a religious text for the basis of one's morality is subjective choice. If a morality is truly based on instructions of a divine being, then that morality is a subjective position of that deity.

To believers scriptures are the objective word and law of God. You are literally doing what all material atheists do which is make these absolute claims that scriptures and gods are unreal and false and the only absolute and truth is materialism.

Its literally your metaphysics verses believers metaphysics. Your claiming yours is the truth on this. Thats a belief not science or reality.

 

[partinobodycular]

Otherwise we'll stick to the concept of stealing being generally considered as not such a great idea for society as a whole.

I'm not questioning your right to pass legal judgment. I'm questioning your right to pass moral judgment.

In another thread we pondered the integrity of judging a life that we didn't have to live. It's often claimed that if we knew all the details of an act, then we would always be able to judge the morality of it. But perhaps the opposite is true, and as with Valjean, knowing the details of the act makes it that much harder to judge the morality of it. For there but for the grace of God go I, and it's not the details of what we do that matters, it's the details of why.

 

[stevevw]

If you think that an objective basis for a moral position means that morality itself is therefore objective, then you have a serious problem with comprehension.

There are two parts to this. First it seems morality demands an objective. Its normative. Second objective means literally outside the subject. So any rationalisation, feeling, opinion or belief that does not look beyond the human is not objective.

So the situation is we need an objective for morality outside the human.

I can't see how morality cannot be objective by logic. It doesn't matter what that objective is. But its objective.

Unless you can show me another way to have objective morality without an objective basis. They are the same thing aren't they.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not questioning your right to pass legal judgment. I'm questioning your right to pass moral judgment.

I wasn't referring to the legality of it. Rather the morality. And we each have the right to pass moral judgement.

In another thread we pondered the integrity of judging a life that we didn't have to live. It's often claimed that if we knew all the details of an act, then we would always be able to judge the morality of it.

I don't know if you think that complete knowledge would therefore make it objective or that you're just assuming that it would be objective in any case and we'd simply discover that. Either position is wrong.

If we knew the ultimate result of any given act (and I don't know why you'd stop the process of looking, assuming that you'd reached the conclusion) then you'd still have to give me your opinion on it and ask me what my opinion was.

 

[stevevw]

Murder is a legal term which by definition describes an act of killing as being wrong. But let's take stealing. Do you think it's possible for me to give you an example of stealing which you think is morally right? An example where there is this 'grey area'?

Of course but how does that change the moral law that stealing is wrong. It doesn't change to 'Stealing is a grey area'. No stealing is morally wrong full stop.

What your talking about is making exceptions within that objective according to circumstances. But notice the important qualifyer when this is an exception. Its because of another moral truth has stepped in. Now we have two moral truths about different situations competing.

But its not based on a whim, or feeling, or opinion that caused this exception. But another objective moral truth.

A father takes some food because his child is dying of starvation. If you didn't and it was possible you would be guilty of a greater moral wrong. But that doesn't change the moral truth that stealing is wrong. Its still an objective moral landscape that we can navigate. The ultimate objective here was saving the human life of a child.

That is what objective morality literally means. That we can navigate to an objective truth in every moral situation. By reasoning our way through we will find that truth. Sometimes we may not know all the answers but that doesn't mean that objective truth cannot be found. It will always be there to be discovered.

 

[Bradskii]

Unless you can show me another way to have objective morality without an objective basis. They are the same thing aren't they.

No, they're not. There's an objective basis for any given moral position because the opinion will based on facts about the world (or what we believe to be facts about the world).

Valjean stole some bread to feed his starving family. Them's the objective facts. Do you think that's an immoral act? As soon as you give me your opinion on it then it's clear that it's relative.

But you might say that it's written in gold lettering on a slab of enchanted marble in a warlock's castle that it's immoral for Valjean to steal bread to feed his starving family (or it's in someone's religious text). In which case I'll ask you if you think that's correct. And as soon as you give me your opinion on it then it's clear that it's still relative.

I don't get what you don't see about this. Give me a fact about the world and I can check to see if it's true. Give me your opinion on anything and it's obviously an opinion that is relative to you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How can that be. My first reply was to your claim that atheism is not a metaphysical belef or worldview. I was arguing against it by saying evidence shows even atheist based their position on belief.

I'm not going to go through the rest but each section was a reply to your claims. I addressed them one by one. The interesting thing is you did not address my replies or the evidence.

You are doing the same. Where have I said that secular is a religion. You are not reading my replies yourself. Either that or your creating a strawman as I never argued that secular is a religion.

You do it several times. I apparently inserted the quote just now in the wrong place at your *third* insistence of this error.

Perhaps your confusing my saying that even secularists hold metaphysical beliefs in transcendent ideas. Thats not religion in the traditional sense but nevertheless its a belief like religion. So any claim that secular is not religion as far as belief is concerned is wrong.

There you go again. Equating "secular" with religion.

Your spending a lot of time creating a strawman when I never said secular was religion. I said it contains metaphysical beliefs in transcendent ideas that are like religious belief in the transcedent. Except its not regarded as religion. But it does the same thing as religion. Fills in that metaphysical void about whats beyond what we see.

Sure looks like it to me.

If religion is about belief in a transcendent being, a moral lawgiver then what is secular if it is not religion.

Then we have a problem. Because what is classed as secular society, the one that is not religion,just about every person within that is classed as being secular to represent secular society also holds a metaphysical belif that transcends the material world in some way.

I know that some silly non-believers call themselves "secular" rather than "agnostic/atheist/non-believer/etc", but that's not the point. We all interact with secular aspects of society. The question of the thread is secular rather than religious morality, not if you avail yourself of secular therapy or see a clergyman for couselling.

Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in science is an attempt at grounding morals in some transcedent basis. Using science as the true measure of morality is philosophy and not science. Its a metaphysical belief that morals are grounded in materialism as opposed to some immaterial aspect.

Science is not "transcendent" in the typical use of the word to describes gods, etc.

Not objective morality beyond human beliefs and opinions. All humans can have subjective morality. But they cannot have objective morality unless they can ground it in something not human.

So in some ways because morality cannot be grounded in material science any attempt to make morality objective is appealing to a transcedent basis.

To believers scriptures are the objective word and law of God. You are literally doing what all material atheists do which is make these absolute claims that scriptures and gods are unreal and false and the only absolute and truth is materialism.

I"m done with this. We can't have a coherent conversation if you don't listen and keep making claims counter to reality.

Its literally your metaphysics verses believers metaphysics. Your claiming yours is the truth on this. Thats a belief not science or reality.

Don't ever talk to me of metaphysics.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course but how does that change the moral law that stealing is wrong. It doesn't change to 'Stealing is a grey area'. No stealing is morally wrong full stop.

What your talking about is making exceptions within that objective according to circumstances.

I'm not making exceptions. I'm simply giving you the details that you need to make a decision on the morality of the act. Just saying 'Valjean stole something' is obviously not enough information. You need to know what he stole and why he stole it. It can't be wrong for him to steal but then all of a sudden right for him to steal because you have more details. That's obviously nonsensical.

Bradskii hit the guy over the head with a piece of 4x2.

Is that morally right or wrong? You have absolutely no idea at all because you don't have the full story. Maybe I was in a bad mood and just felt like hitting someone. Or maybe he was just about to shoot a child. Obtain the objective facts of the matter and you can then give me your personal opinion on it.

 

[Bradskii]

That is what objective morality literally means. That we can navigate to an objective truth in every moral situation. By reasoning our way through we will find that truth. Sometimes we may not know all the answers but that doesn't mean that objective truth cannot be found. It will always be there to be discovered.

I'm afraid that it does mean that we cannot find the objective moral truth. When do we decide that we've reached the point where the truth lies? Why don't we go a step further? Who decides when we stop? When we find what you consider to be the truth, how do you decide that it is the truth? It it true in your opinion or do we all need to agree? In which case it looks like we're having a vote on the matter. And moral truths don't live there.

 

[partinobodycular]

Bradskii hit the guy over the head with a piece of 4x2.

Is that morally right or wrong?

It's neither. You just made up a characteristic that things don't have.

 

[Bradskii]

It's neither.

No, it's definitely going to be one or the other in your opinion. You just don't have enough facts about the matter to make a decision. I added facts for two scenarios. Now you can give me your opinion on the morality of each act. Assuming that you consider the facts sufficient to do so.

 

[partinobodycular]

No, it's definitely going to be one or the other in your opinion.

No can do.

 

[Bradskii]

No can do.

No opinion one way or the other? I find that difficult to come to terms with.