Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You still can.You have "your" moral standard. Is it "high" or not will still subject to debate. You need an absolute scale to measure the degree of morality. For atheists, there is no such scale.
When I was an atheist, I could easily justify all my actions and retracted any sinful feeling appeared in me.
No, I have the moral standard, according to my best judgment. Of course, it is "mine" in the sense that not every agrees with me on this subject.
It is high in the sense that it limits my actions. You don't have to agree that I have identified the correct moral standard.
WRONG! BZZZT!
My absolute scale is human flourishing, which is based on the requirements of life as a rational being with a human psychology. I have a rich sense of ethics, including many virtues that I identify as appropriate to human existence.
You don't have to agree with my ethical philosophy, but I definitely do identify a completely binding and objective scale with which to identify virtues and rank values for their appropriateness to human life.
Then you were a foolish atheist. Not all atheists are foolish, however.
eudaimonia,
Mark
For theists, there are as many "absolute" scales as there are different gods to believe in.
It was more like: As long as you aren´t perfect you will always feel sinful.
Ok.
The actual difference is not theism vs. atheism. The actual differences is: There are people who declare their subjective standards objective, and there are those who don´t. Unfortunately for them, the first regularly fail in trying to demonstrate how their morals are objective or to demonstrate that the alleged absolute source of their morality even exists.
Yet if you can't explain why something being penned in the Bible makes a moral objective then it is not worth the paper it is written on.No no. What declares is the Bible. It is not written by one person over one time. Christians take It as the absolute standard. It is very objective. (I think Muslims make theirs even better, according to your standard of evaluation).
I could again clarify that this was not what I meant but I guess you will ignore this clarification yet another time.Here it comes again. (you don't give up, do you?)
It should be: I will always feel sinful NOT because I am not perfect.
You mean things that aren´t in any way related to ethics and morality? Ok.There are many imperfect things, but some of them will never feel sinful.
So remind me: what renders the bible authoritative in terms of declaring standards objective?No no. What declares is the Bible. It is not written by one person over one time.
That´s undisputed at this moment. What´s disputed it that they have demonstrated it to be the absolute standard.Christians take It as the absolute standard.
Pick up one. Then you have only one.
Thought-crime.
Don't need religion to be moral.
So remind me: what renders the bible authoritative in terms of declaring standards objective?
That´s undisputed at this moment. What´s disputed it that they have demonstrated it to be the absolute standard.
Yet if you can't explain why something being penned in the Bible makes a moral objective then it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Same goes for Muslims and the Qu'ran.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There are moral people who are of no particular religious affiliation.No religion, no moral.
I could again clarify that this was not what I meant but I guess you will ignore this clarification yet another time.
Your statement is not contradicting mine, so I´m not seeing where we disagree.
You mean things that aren´t in any way related to ethics and morality? Ok.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There are moral people who are of no particular religious affiliation.
Exactly my point. That´s the part you need to work on in order to even only begin to have a case.The problem is not who renders it, but does it exist or not.
Except that I have told you multiple times that I didn´t intend to argue for or from a cause-consequence logic.It is not contradicting. But the cause-consequence logic is very different.
Uh, there is if you're not completely credulous and convinced by the claims of innate authority. I have no reason to accept Biblical standards of what one ought. I am not convinced by you simply reasserting that I should capitulate in my skepticism and merely follow ordersThere is no need to do that. Just recognize it and obey it would be good enough. That is how a standard becomes a standard.
Your keyword "absolute" seems to have got lost during the discussion.There is no need to do that. Just recognize it and obey it would be good enough. That is how a standard becomes a standard.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?