Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

Do you also hang out on other religious forums debating whether other gods that you don't believe in exist?

This isn't a thread discussing whether or not God exists so I'm not debating it nor am I interested in debating it. And if you check my 9,000 plus posts you won't find one that does (although there have been discussions on the validity of some proofs of His existence).

It's about secular morality v morality based on what God wants. I think that everyone has assumed He exists for the purpose of the discussion. My questions have all been about arguments one could use to determine morality apart from 'God desires it'. If He indeed does, then I want to know why He does.

To date, no answer has been given.

 

[Bradskii]

The thread asked the atheists to disprove that an authority is needed for true morality...you never did that, and neither did the others here....so that's up to you to state your case for what defines moral truth.

I've lost count of the number of posts that describe how morality evolved and how we determine moral questions based on axiomatic concepts such as the need to avoid harm. I'm not going to repeat any of them because you've ignored them all to date and I can't see that changing.

 

[YahuahSaves]

This isn't a thread discussing whether or not God exists so I'm not debating it nor am I interested in debating it.

I didn't ask you for a debate, I asked you a direct question in relation to your previous post. See:

Do you also hang out on other religious forums debating whether other gods that you don't believe in exist?

My questions have all been about arguments one could use to determine morality apart from 'God desires it'

I've lost count of the number of posts that describe how morality evolved and how we determine moral questions based on axiomatic concepts such as the need to avoid harm.

Yes your questions, but no real argument has been given except the presumption morality is authorative subjectively based on changing biological and social factors. What makes your view moral truth and someone's else's view moral truth if there is disagreement? What's the basis for your argument?

 

[Bradskii]

.What makes your view moral truth and someone's else's view moral truth if there is disagreement? What's the basis for your argument?

It depends on the situation, but we'd both agree on the facts of the matter and each develop an argument. The better argument wins. You, on the other hand, simply say 'God says so.'

 

[YahuahSaves]

It depends on the situation, but we'd both agree on the facts of the matter and each develop an argument. The better argument wins. You, on the other hand, simply say 'God says so.'

Exactly. As far as your end-statement goes, your very presumptuous. (And is obviously why you're using an avoidance tactic on this thread). If you recall, I asked you to elaborate here, where I had intended to start a discussion based on a naturalist/materialist viewpoint:

So your view of immorality concerning zoos; is your problem with the fact that the animals are in captivity, or have been captured solely for the sake of human entertainment, or both?

But, as usual you avoided answering the question:

My position is irrelevant. It's how I reached it. Objective facts about zoos and my personal opinion as to the morality.

So who is limiting the discussion here? You've already got it in your mind "there is no objective answer" so you shut down any and all counter-claims there may be to your view.

We're actually not. We're discussing objective v subjective. The scenarios are only examples I've used to show that there is no objective answer.

Your stance is completely immature and becomes downright combative whenever God is mentioned. Remind me again why you hang out on a Christian forum?

(Whoops! I forgot you didn't answer that question either).

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. As far as your end-statement goes, your very presumptuous.

Then if I was wrong, correct me.

 

[Larniavc]

They had to be told......... In the very beginning Cain needed to be told. Its not ingrained normally. We all needed to learn this command as we grew up..

You murder today. In God's eyes you murder.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,
and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. "

Matthew 5:21-22a​

The Greek indicates a type of anger. One full of malicious intent.
Have you not ever wished someone dead? In God's eyes you murdered. For God to think it is to do it.
And, that is what God designed man for to ultimately have in power which will be manifested in eternity. Jesus also said if you just look upon a woman lustfully you have committed the sin in your heart.

What you are describing is thought action fusion which is most often attributed to obsessive compulsive disorder.

In the non magical thinking world thoughts and actions are separate.

Living in a world with thought crimes must be very unpleasant.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Then if I was wrong, correct me.

I did in my post you partially quoted. Perhaps read it.

 

[Bradskii]

I did in my post you partially quoted. Perhaps read it.

You just said I was being presumptuous...it's 4 posts above this one.

It depends on the situation, but we'd both agree on the facts of the matter and each develop an argument. The better argument wins. You, on the other hand, simply say 'God says so.'

You: Exactly. As far as your end-statement goes, your very presumptuous.

To what does the 'exactly' refer to? The first two sentences or the last?

 

[YahuahSaves]

You just said I was being presumptuous...it's 4 posts above this one.


You: Exactly. As far as your end-statement goes, your very presumptuous.

To what does the 'exactly' refer to? The first two sentences or the last?

Read my post in full, or better yet, quote the entire statement. You were being presumptuous that I intended to argue objective truth based on God existing. I did not.

 

[Robban]

What you are describing is thought action fusion which is most often attributed to obsessive compulsive disorder.

In the non magical thinking world thoughts and actions are separate.

Living in a world with thought crimes must be very unpleasant.

A negative thought is like drawing a sword, not drawing it complerely out of it's sheaf
and putting back, no harm done.

By putting the thought into action is like shooting an arrow, once it is shot there is no taking it back.

More or less a similarity per James 1:14-15

 

[Bradskii]

Read my post in full, or better yet, quote the entire statement. You were being presumptuous that I intended to argue objective truth based on God existing. I did not.

Then you'll have some personal reasons for making your decisions. What are you going to base those decisions on?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Then you'll have some personal reasons for making your decisions. What are you going to base those decisions on?

In the past (before becoming a Christian), I based my decisions on my emotions like many other people. Also, experience. "Don't do X because it led to Y" actions that have led to immediate negative consequences.

 

[Bradskii]

In the past (before becoming a Christian), I based my decisions on my emotions like many other people. Also, experience. "Don't do X because it led to Y" actions that have led to immediate negative consequences.

So you do know how secular morality works...

I expect you to use God as the source of your morality, but when you asked this...

'So what's your morality based on then? Self-preservation? Giving something for the sake of getting something in return?'

...you already knew. And part of it was don't do X because it led to Y actions that have led to immediate negative consequences. Immoral acts cause harm. And the corollary is, if no harm is done then it can't be immoral.

 

[Larniavc]

A negative thought is like drawing a sword, not drawing it complerely out of it's sheaf
and putting back, no harm done.

By putting the thought into action is like shooting an arrow, once it is shot there is no taking it back.

More or less a similarity per James 1:14-15

I agree. The thought alone is harmless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This isn't a thread discussing whether or not God exists so I'm not debating it nor am I interested in debating it. And if you check my 9,000 plus posts you won't find one that does (although there have been discussions on the validity of some proofs of His existence).

It's about secular morality v morality based on what God wants. I think that everyone has assumed He exists for the purpose of the discussion. My questions have all been about arguments one could use to determine morality apart from 'God desires it'. If He indeed does, then I want to know why He does.

To date, no answer has been given.

Bradskii, isn't the short of it seen in this?: That while non-Christians and Secular skeptics can be said to be moral agents, and I whole-heartedly acknowledge that most of them, like Christians, are, they do however have different Ethical framework(s) by which they arrive at their moral ideas and the justifications for those ideas and they thus have a different [SET] of morals on the whole, even if the morals in their respective [SET] have some comparable elements.

(?)

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii, isn't the short of it seen in this?: That while non-Christians and Secular skeptics can be said to be moral agents, and I whole-heartedly acknowledge that most of them, like Christians, are, they do however have different Ethical framework(s) by which they arrive at their moral ideas and the justifications for those ideas and they thus have a different [SET] of morals on the whole, even if the morals in their respective [SET] have some comparable elements.

(?)

It's not so much a difference in moral outlook so much as why they hold their views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not so much a difference in moral outlook so much as why they hold their views.

Yeah. There I have to agree with you.

From my perspective, there's a paucity of data on all sides that makes subscribing to any one Ethical view, along with the attending outcrop of moral sets that can result from that one Ethical view, a difficult one, especially on an Absolute scale.

This might be a convenient reason as to why we all should cut each other just a little epistemological slack since metaphysical absolutes are extremely hard to come by in Ethical reasoning. Somehow, though, we all seem to expect others to take OUR own version of morality very seriously.

I never really could figure out why these expectations are such as they are when there's such a paucity of Absolute moral data in the world. To me, on an existential level, morality on the whole looks like a rather nebulous affair.

Maybe this is why some folks think that metaphysically laden values are necessary since the existence of pain isn't enough of a guideline?

 

[Ken-1122]

What would be the point of that?

Because the only way quoting Bible scriptures will be taken seriously is when you quote them to people who actually believe what the bible says.

Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't preach to the Chior"?

Yes. But if you want to be taken seriously by someone who does not share your theistic beliefs, you need to come up with an argument that does not involve quoting scriptures from your religion.

 

[Ken-1122]

The thread asked the atheists to disprove that an authority is needed for true morality...you never did that, and neither did the others here....so that's up to you to state your case for what defines moral truth.

The claim that an authority (other than each of us) is not needed for morality is the default position. If your point is that such an authority is needed, that is up for you to prove.