Needing justification for morality

[Jeremy E Walker]

You're new here, so I let you in on a little secret:

Based on the fact that you asked if we were angry at Yahweh, I hypothesize you haven't talked to many serious atheists or actually researched the subject. You're literally making all of the textbook mistakes right out of the theist handbook.

We are not angry at any gods. Atheism is the rejection of god claims, so we don't believe in any and can't be angry at them. However, some of us are angry at religious beliefs and concepts of gods. Some of us are indifferent. It depends on the atheist.

Second, what if I'm wrong? What's God gonna do? I searched for God and was considering going to a seminary before I realized I could not rational hold my beliefs. They were incoherent. How is it my fault God decided not to help me?

What if your wrong? Allah really wouldn't like it if you treat someone other than him as a god. Heck, even within Christianity you can be wrong.

Try harder.

If you are wrong and we are right then that means that when you die you indeed will stand before God and God will hold you accountable for your response to His offer of salvation procured for you by the precious blood of His Son Jesus who is called the Christ who was accursed and hanged on a tree.

It means that you will have to give an account as to why you rejected the free gift that even now is being proclaimed to be available to you.

It also means that you, like everyone else, before they die, will have been given sufficient proof to make the rejection of Christ inexcusable on intellectual grounds.

If you are wrong, you will have to bear the penalty of your sins because you have rejected the atoning work of Christ who died in your stead and the penalty is eternal separation from God.

 

[bhsmte]

If you are wrong and we are right then that means that when you die you indeed will stand before God and God will hold you accountable for your response to His offer of salvation procured for you by the precious blood of His Son Jesus who is called the Christ who was accursed and hanged on a tree.

It means that you will have to give an account as to why you rejected the free gift that even now is being proclaimed to be available to you.

It also means that you, like everyone else, before they die, will have been given sufficient proof to make the rejection of Christ inexcusable on intellectual grounds.

If you are wrong, you will have to bear the penalty of your sins because you have rejected the atoning work of Christ who died in your stead and the penalty is eternal separation from God.

You may see the proof, but I don't, plain and simple. And, if there is a God and he wants to have people shut off their brains and stop thinking, then, that is not a loving all caring God for all of his people.

If there is a God, he knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, because he created me right? So he creates someone who he knows ahead of time won't believe in him and he is going to punish the person who he created in that fashion? If you can reconcile that with an all loving all caring God, more power to you.

 

[tacdon]

You may see the proof, but I don't, plain and simple. And, if there is a God and he wants to have people shut off their brains and stop thinking, then, that is not a loving all caring God for all of his people.

If there is a God, he knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, because he created me right? So he creates someone who he knows ahead of time won't believe in him and he is going to punish the person who he created in that fashion? If you can reconcile that with an all loving all caring God, more power to you.

What would it take for you to believe in God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everyone is born with a conscience, but people are also born with a free will. That means that can choose to believe their conscience or not. They might select certain things to believe and others not to believe.

They might still believe it is wrong to murder, but believe it is fine to steal.

You are dodging my questions. You have not answered a single question. Instead, you just restated your claims.

Let's not beat around the bush. I'll tell you what, go straight to question 2.C.

If presented with a hypothetical scenario and you are asked what the moral course of action would be to go forward... what aspects of the scenario would you highlight in order to inform your conclusion on the most moral course of action moving forward? How would you go about it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sine you know so much about this, what are some shaky things in the NT from a historical perspective?

You do know if you are wrong the penalty will be great.

Please save your fear tactics, Pascal's Wager variations and threats of eternal torture for another thread. Here, the topic is justifying morality.

Now please, answer my question that is actually ON topic:

when presented with a hypothetical scenario and asked what the moral course of action would be, what aspects of the scenario would you highlight and analyse in order to form an informed conclusion? How would you go about deciding what is moral and what isn't?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you are wrong and we are right then that means that when you die you indeed will stand before God and God will hold you accountable for your response to His offer of salvation procured for you by the precious blood of His Son Jesus who is called the Christ who was accursed and hanged on a tree.

It means that you will have to give an account as to why you rejected the free gift that even now is being proclaimed to be available to you.

It also means that you, like everyone else, before they die, will have been given sufficient proof to make the rejection of Christ inexcusable on intellectual grounds.

If you are wrong, you will have to bear the penalty of your sins because you have rejected the atoning work of Christ who died in your stead and the penalty is eternal separation from God.

Please keep this childish pascal's wager for another thread.
It's been a long time since we've had an actually interesting topic here. Let's not ruin it with fear mongering, scare tactics and fallacious nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What would it take for you to believe in God.

A new thread where god is properly defined so that I can differentiate it from a non-existent thing so we can continue this thread on the topic of justifying morality.

Now please, answer my question.

 

[bhsmte]

What would it take for you to believe in God.

I have already stated why I don't believe in the Christian God, so those points should answer your question.

 

[juvenissun]

That´s because you keep beating around the bush until you have forgotten what the point of discussion was.
Here, let me look it up for you:

Originally Posted by juvenissun
In fact, the theory of evolution is the one western philosophy (no science argument) mostly related to the philosophy of Daoism. For example, it is moral to a Daoist that a strong guy kills a weak guy regardless of reason. In Daoism, this is so-called 天命 (or sort of "fate")

I don't see anything wrong with what I said. I said I don't want to talk about science of evolution in this thread. But, if you like to derail the thread, I don't mind to do that too.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, justifying genocide.

It doesn't matter. There is no context in which genocide is a-okay.

See, this is what happens when you sacrifice your rational reasoning in favor of bronze-age myths. It can potentially put you in a position where you will have to defend and justify the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent men, women and children.

And you dare to lecture us about morality. Give me a break.

Of course I dare. Because I learned. Now, listen:

I can't justify genocide. But God can, and I agree with Him.

God told Israelites: kill them off, or you will abandon me (attn: not the other way around).
Israelites did not obey. So, they ended up been scattered all over the world.

That is a very convincing lesson. The reason for that particular genocide is perfectly sound.

 

[Huntun]

What evidence do you have that God actually ordered the genocide as opposed to the human author/s of the Biblical text merely asserting that he did with no real justification? It doesn't seem to explain how this supposed divine communication took place it just makes an unsupported assertion that God wanted it done. Did the author hear a voice in his head telling him to go with genocide? What investigation did he do to verify the integrity of the supposed communication?

Putting yourself in his shoes how would you verify things to make sure you should really go out and kill children and such. Would a voice in you're head claiming to be God convince you to do something like that?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can't justify genocide. But God can, and I agree with Him.

How flexible you are.

God told Israelites: kill them off, or you will abandon me (attn: not the other way around).
Israelites did not obey. So, they ended up been scattered all over the world.

That is a very convincing lesson. The reason for that particular genocide is perfectly sound.

Remind me again how you can't justify genocide? It sounds like you believe that particular genocide is justified.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

How flexible you are.



Remind me again how you can't justifygenocide? It sounds like you believe that particular genocide is justified.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is an illogical question from a humanist.

It is an order from God. I agree full heartily.

 

[juvenissun]

What evidence do you have that God actually ordered the genocide as opposed to the human author/s of the Biblical text merely asserting that he did with no real justification? It doesn't seem to explain how this supposed divine communication took place it just makes an unsupported assertion that God wanted it done. Did the author hear a voice in his head telling him to go with genocide? What investigation did he do to verify the integrity of the supposed communication?

Putting yourself in his shoes how would you verify things to make sure you should really go out and kill children and such. Would a voice in you're head claiming to be God convince you to do something like that?

You read the Books of Samuels, and Kings. Then you will understand. The history is the evidence.

Israelites did try to kill off everything (everyone + all animals) in a few battles (but did not in most cases). The action is against the human nature, but they did try to obey. How could they obey a command which is against their own conscience? At that time, people is a precious resources. If enemy are conquered, you do not kill them, you enslave them. That is what they did in the late stage of their invasion. And that is the vital mistake they made: disobey.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You may see the proof, but I don't, plain and simple.

You currently do not see it. I understand. Trust me, I do. This does not mean that you will not. As I stated, before each person dies they will have been given sufficient evidence to make the rejection of Christ inexcusable on intellectual grounds.

And, if there is a God and he wants to have people shut off their brains and stop thinking, then, that is not a loving all caring God for all of his people.

I agree with you 100%.

If there is a God, he knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, because he created me right?

You are exactly right!

So he creates someone who he knows ahead of time won't believe in him and he is going to punish the person who he created in that fashion?

Yes.

If you can reconcile that with an all loving all caring God, more power to you.

It is easy to reconcile. God did not cause the person to reject Him by knowing the person would reject Him. God's foreknowledge regarding a person's actions does not determine the action. The person freely chooses to reject Him.

Or to explain it thus:

Just because you know that a person will do (x) if you give them (y) before you give them (y), it does not follow that you cause them to do (x) by giving them (y).

 

[DogmaHunter]

You currently do not see it. I understand. Trust me, I do. This does not mean that you will not. As I stated, before each person dies they will have been given sufficient evidence to make the rejection of Christ inexcusable on intellectual grounds.




I agree with you 100%.



You are exactly right!



Yes.




It is easy to reconcile. God did not cause the person to reject Him by knowing the person would reject Him. God's foreknowledge regarding a person's actions does not determine the action. The person freely chooses to reject Him.

Or to explain it thus:

Just because you know that a person will do (x) if you give them (y) before you give them (y), it does not follow that you cause them to do (x) by giving them (y).

One thing is painfully obvious now: you are morally bankrupt.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is an illogical question from a humanist.

It is an order from God. I agree full heartily.

Only because if you question it, you would believe that god would punish you for it. Which is something a tyrant, not a benign loving being, would do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is an illogical question from a humanist.

You had said that you can't justify genocide, and then proceed to say that "the reason for that particular genocide is perfectly sound", suggesting that you think that genocide (at least one particular example) is justified.

I detect a contradiction from you, and all within one post.

It is an order from God. I agree full heartily.

With genocide, the greatest act of evil. You are a genocide apologist. Yes, I got that.

I imagine that Nazi soldiers agreed with Hitler, figuring that surely Hitler would know how his orders were justified. Obedience and moral flexibility are identical. Obedience and moral integrity are opposites.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Senator Cheese]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

This was the question I wanted to address in my earlier thread.
I see you are better at formulating the problem at hand. Thank you for it.

As long as there is no justification, temptation will lead to contradicting actions. If there is no enforcer, then morals (in an atheist world being irrational) will succumb to more practical (and rational) actions that maximize profits - look at the wolves of wall street or corrupt men in power.

Someone who does not believe in God has no reason to follow any laws whatsoever. While he may do so at first to please these vestigial emotions, he will ultimately wander astray from these laws, supposedly realizing them to be only remnants of psychological evolution and shackles that keep him from true success.

 

[quatona]

As long as there is no justification, temptation will lead to contradicting actions. If there is no enforcer, then morals (in an atheist world being irrational) will succumb to more practical (and rational) actions that maximize profits - look at the wolves of wall street or corrupt men in power.

Yes, all wolves of wall street and corrupt men are atheists.

Someone who does not believe in God has no reason to follow any laws whatsoever.

Well, who says morality is about laws, to begin with? Unless morality is arbitrary (as opposed to founded in reason) there is no need for an entity to command it.

While he may do so at first to please these vestigial emotions, he will ultimately wander astray from these laws, supposedly realizing them to be only remnants of psychological evolution and shackles that keep him from true success.

Is it possible that you are projecting your desires (power, corruption, success...) on everyone?