The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The people that form the governments that God commands don't always follow His laws because we are all sinners.
They don’t follow my laws either. Doesn’t mean I instituted the US Government.
I am not sure it was founded ON slavery but it was founded with slavery being allowed. There were many founders that from the beginning questioned slavery but never did anything about ending it. You need to remember almost all nations had slaves at the time of the founding of the US. But the US treated its slaves better than most countries at the time and then ended it sooner than most countries in the world.
Oh! So that makes it okay? My grandma used to say; “even if the entire world is doing wrong, that doesn’t excuse you”.
No, you were claiming that Hitler was a Christian and I refuted it. Most Germans at that point in history WERE theological liberals and did not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Theological liberalism was invented in Germany. Ever hear of Friederich Schleiermacher and Rudolf Bultmann? And this was 100 years before the Nazis came to power. The German establishment had been theologically liberal for at least 50 years before the Nazis came into existence. This led to the ordinary Germans eventually becoming theologically liberal before WWII. Read the book "Twisted Cross". The German churches especially the protestants believed that the bible had been corrupted by the jews, so anything they thought came from the jews was in error. This combined with their evolutionary view of religion caused them to reject biblical inerrancy. So there was no longer an objective moral standard revealed by God so basically all things became permissible including human slaughter.
A simple google search shows the relationship Hitler and the Nazi party had with the Catholic church. Such pictures show Hitler praying, At church, at the Vatican, shaking hands with the Pope, various high ranking people of the Church in the Nazi salute, along with various high ranking members of the Nazi party with Catholic priests.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=pictures+of+hitler+and+the+catholic+church&fr=yfp-t-s&imgurl=http://www.papalepapale.com/develop/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hitler_at_catholic_church-580x333.jpg#id=87&iurl=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8f/e4/1d/8fe41d6dfa1c65f60ce240bbfc1f3e27.jpg&action=close

If one pictures is worth a thousand words, I figured lots of pictures might provide enough words to even convince even you of the points I made. What about you? Do you have anything to support your claim that the Nazis rejection of the Bible is what lead to the Holocaust? Or are you going to continue spittin’ out more empty claims expecting me to take your word for it.

Ken
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do in a way.

We have evolved a fight flight system for "evil" life threatening stimuli and a relaxation response for "good" life promoting circumstances. Likewise with food, we have "yum" versus "yuck" for good tastes and bad ones, which indicate benifit or harm. With social stress we have a cortisol system (bad), but in opposition we have bonding and trust mediated by the oxytocin system (good). And the pleasure pain dualism.

So our biopsychology is the basis for the development of our basic moral categories. Of good and evil.

Add the capacity language and expression of these states of affairs, and we have the development of a system of vocalized morality.

Which "attracts" us to Being - such that the beliefs about and vocalisations of "good" when ordered in an objectively correct way with the environment is like a feedback loop from heaven. Good things, good life, "good" morals, good time...

Yet there are limits to this system, just as there are limits to life and survival. Objective constraints.

Flourishing, health, well being .... it is rational to prefer, in that there is reasoning fitting to thinking about and selecting or willing such states of affairs. So we traverse space time with a pre-given scheme of purpose. No scheme, no dream.



So morality may have evolved, and terms like "goods" and "evils" serve to promote human interests. The issue being we're only 100 years on from Darwin, and neuroscience is fresher still, so the philosophers haven't had much time to reflect. IIRC from reading up on the issue, even the existentialists like Sartre, who knew about Darwin, thought it too early to theorize about any links.

Call this subjective or objective, but whatz the point?

"Hey I'm a philosopher!"

1280px-Fanta_cannot_be_good_for_a_monkey..._%284331754056%29.jpg
You have neglected to list a single atheist who claims to get his morals from the TOE
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
But more things in Genesis has been confirmed as false by science.
So far you haven't found one.

ken: Most animals don't hibernate.
2 mya more animals may have had the ability to do so because of the Ice Age around that time.

ken; How does this happen with lakes that are thousands of miles from the ocean?
Read the article.

ken: I'm not talking about Hebrew words, I'm asking is it your claim that the Bible has been improperly translated into English?
Translating the OT requires extensive knowledge of Hebrew words. Yes, those verses I was referring to are not translated correctly at this point in history since now we know which Hebrew definition we should use because of God's other "book" Nature.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So far you haven't found one.
* A talking snake
* few people built a floating Ark 450 feet long out of wood without any steel reinforcements, something that can’t be done today
*A world wide flood
*All the animals of the world were released in Middle East Asia, and somehow spread through out the rest of the world without leaving a trail
*People were regularly living up to nearly 1000 years old before dying

2 mya more animals may have had the ability to do so because of the Ice Age around that time.
2 Million years ago? Most bible scholars agree Noah’s ark was around 4 thousand years ago.

Timeline for the Flood

Read the article.
How about if you read the article, then use that info to answer the question.

Translating the OT requires extensive knowledge of Hebrew words. Yes, those verses I was referring to are not translated correctly at this point in history since now we know which Hebrew definition we should use because of God's other "book" Nature.
And how do you know translation is the problem instead of the biblical claims themselves?[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
As I pointed out to you before, if the Nazi's had Christian inscriptions on their uniforms, and the leader (Hitler) of the Nazi party was in good standings with the Catholic Church until his death, that should at least be a hint to you that the Nazi's were not an atheist based society.
I didn't say that Nazi Germany was an atheist based society. It was more of a humanist society with one particular race of humans treated preferentially, ie "Aryans". The Christian inscriptions were just to placate the ordinary Germans who considered themselves Christians however most were theologically liberal and no longer accepted the infallible moral authority of the Bible. Most of the moral decisions that the Nazi government made were based on their preferential Aryan humanistic philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The belief that we get our empathy from evolution, like most atheists I know believe, is not connected to social darwinism. It's an entirely different thing. I personally don't know any atheist that's espoused social darwinism.

And the belief that we get our empathy through evolution has nothing to do with what actions we deem "good" or "bad". Those are separate as well.
All the systems of thought I referenced believe that they get their morality from evolution. There are atheists in all groups. I am not saying that they all agree on the conclusions drawn from those ideas. Some borrow more from Christianity so are more humane than others. The point I want to make is if we get our moral sense from evolution then it is not just empathy we get from it, there is also psychopathic behavior as well, and since they both come from the same source, how do you know which is good and which is bad? According to evolution no species is more important than anther either, so you cant just say if it hurts humans then it is bad.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,719
3,791
✟254,230.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
There are atheists in all groups. I am not saying that they all agree on the conclusions drawn from those ideas. Some borrow more from Christianity so are more humane than others.

Cute...
I don't "borrow" any moral conclusions from Christianity, and I appear to be of the same moral character as the few "good" Christians I know.

The point I want to make is if we get our moral sense from evolution then it is not just empathy we get from it, there is also psychopathic behavior as well, and since they both come from the same source, how do you know which is good and which is bad?

I've been arguing this entire time that "good" and "bad" are subjective. There's only "good... to you" and "bad... to you".

According to evolution no species is more important than anther either, so you cant just say if it hurts humans then it is bad.

Not objectively bad, no.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
According to evolution no species is more important than anther either, so you cant just say if it hurts humans then it is bad.
Sounds like you are confusing evolution when applied to species, with evolution when applied to morality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do in a way.

We have evolved a fight flight system for "evil" life threatening stimuli and a relaxation response for "good" life promoting circumstances. Likewise with food, we have "yum" versus "yuck" for good tastes and bad ones, which indicate benifit or harm. With social stress we have a cortisol system (bad), but in opposition we have bonding and trust mediated by the oxytocin system (good). And the pleasure pain dualism.

So our biopsychology is the basis for the development of our basic moral categories. Of good and evil.

Add the capacity language and expression of these states of affairs, and we have the development of a system of vocalized morality.

Which "attracts" us to Being - such that the beliefs about and vocalisations of "good" when ordered in an objectively correct way with the environment is like a feedback loop from heaven. Good things, good life, "good" morals, good time...

Yet there are limits to this system, just as there are limits to life and survival. Objective constraints.

Flourishing, health, well being .... it is rational to prefer, in that there is reasoning fitting to thinking about and selecting or willing such states of affairs. So we traverse space time with a pre-given scheme of purpose. No scheme, no dream.



So morality may have evolved, and terms like "goods" and "evils" serve to promote human interests. The issue being we're only 100 years on from Darwin, and neuroscience is fresher still, so the philosophers haven't had much time to reflect. IIRC from reading up on the issue, even the existentialists like Sartre, who knew about Darwin, thought it too early to theorize about any links.

Call this subjective or objective, but whatz the point?

"Hey I'm a philosopher!"

1280px-Fanta_cannot_be_good_for_a_monkey..._%284331754056%29.jpg
:oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Per the examples I gave before, everything that is put under the category of rape or abuse does not hurt, traumatize, or cause pany type of damage to a person
Even statutory rape hurts people. The truth of the law is that it is to stop adults from taking advantage of younger people. That is because the young person is incapable of understanding what they are doing. In that sense they are being taken advantage of and that is a denial of their rights.

What about a man like Jesus, brainwashed into believing he is actually the son of God and sacrificing himself for the good of mankind? What do you think science would say about that?
Thats a good question. For anyone who believes they are Jesus or God today a pschological assessment would be done of their overall behavior and cognition. People who believe they are God/Jesus (Charles Mason is a good example) display strange and anti social behavior in all parts of their life. They dont just display delusional behavior for a few minutes here and there. They will also be delusional and perhaps psychotic in all they do. Jesus was not like that. He displayed rational thought and insight and spoke about common sense ideas which a person who believes he is the son of God would not display.

Delusions about being God stem from delusions of granduer and personality disorders and this will affect all their thoughts and personality. Even when Jesus was being questioned about his identity/stature he did not go off in delusional rants but left it to others to decide. He kept quiet and knew what was going on in that he was being set up by others who had it in for him.

Do you know the difference between risking your life vs sacrificing your life?
This is just semantics. Soldiers who go to war in battle are risking their lives. A soldier who puts himself in the line of fire and is killed to save others is sacrificing his life. It is not a risk anymore because he has been killed. He willingly gave up his life to save or try to save others. Do a google search for soldiers who sacrifice their lives and you will see many articles talking about the topic. I think it is wrong to deny that they have sacrificed their lives for their country or mates. Even the rememberance days for soldiers talk about their sacrifice.

Memorial Day is a time to remember those who made the greatest sacrifice
We need to earn our fallen soldiers' sacrifices (opinion) - CNN
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Even statutory rape hurts people. The truth of the law is that it is to stop adults from taking advantage of younger people. That is because the young person is incapable of understanding what they are doing. In that sense they are being taken advantage of and that is a denial of their rights.
So per the example I gave, are you saying if a 17 yr old and a 19 yr old have sex in the state of California, the 17 yr old is incapable of understanding what they are doing, but if they go next door to the state of Nevada, and do the exact same thing, the 17 yr old all of a sudden will understand what they are doing?

Thats a good question. For anyone who believes they are Jesus or God today a pschological assessment would be done of their overall behavior and cognition. People who believe they are God/Jesus (Charles Mason is a good example) display strange and anti social behavior in all parts of their life. They dont just display delusional behavior for a few minutes here and there. They will also be delusional and perhaps psychotic in all they do. Jesus was not like that. He displayed rational thought and insight and spoke about common sense ideas which a person who believes he is the son of God would not display.

Delusions about being God stem from delusions of granduer and personality disorders and this will affect all their thoughts and personality. Even when Jesus was being questioned about his identity/stature he did not go off in delusional rants but left it to others to decide. He kept quiet and knew what was going on in that he was being set up by others who had it in for him.
How do you know Jesus wasn’t being delusional? Because his fan club said he wasn’t in the book they wrote? If you asked Charles Manson’s fan club, they wouldn't have claimed he was never delusional either.

This is just semantics. Soldiers who go to war in battle are risking their lives. A soldier who puts himself in the line of fire and is killed to save others is sacrificing his life. It is not a risk anymore because he has been killed. He willingly gave up his life to save or try to save others. Do a google search for soldiers who sacrifice their lives and you will see many articles talking about the topic. I think it is wrong to deny that they have sacrificed their lives for their country or mates. Even the rememberance days for soldiers talk about their sacrifice.

Memorial Day is a time to remember those who made the greatest sacrifice
We need to earn our fallen soldiers' sacrifices (opinion) - CNN
Soldiers are not trained to put themselves in the line of fire to get killed, they aren’t trained to give up their lives for a greater good. If an individual soldier does this, its because he doesn’t see any other option. Its not like he is all powerful and has the ability to save the day without killing himself! If your God has the ability to do anything, he has the ability to forgive sins without sacrificing an innocent person. The fact that he would insist on someone dying shows his character; the fact that you would attempt to defend such an act shows yours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Even if a god exists, an objectively existing character doesn't get you to objective morality. What you're implying is a non sequitur.

Sure it does. His character IS our objective moral standard.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So per the example I gave, are you saying if a 17 yr old and a 19 yr old have sex in the state of California, the 17 yr old is incapable of understanding what they are doing, but if they go next door to the state of Nevada, and do the exact same thing, the 17 yr old all of a sudden will understand what they are doing?
This is just like any moral issue. We would have to determine whether a person at a certain age cannot understand what is going on regarding sex and be taken advantage of. So if two states disagree on the issue alltogether then someone is going to be right and the other wrong becuase we know that young people cannot think like adults and can be taken advantage of from scientific research.

If they disagree on what age that is then the science may be able to determine this as well. It is just a case of doing more research to find conclusive evidence. There may be a little room for differences becuase the science may not be conclusive at the moment and find that there is a period of maybe two years instead of being one where young people can vary in understanding what is happening. But the important thing is that the science shows that young people can be taken advantage of and that they agree on the moral in the first place.

How do you know Jesus wasn’t being delusional? Because his fan club said he wasn’t in the book they wrote? If you asked Charles Manson’s fan club, they wouldn't have claimed he was never delusional either.
But others besideCharlies fan club said he was delusional and we could see from his acts. There are non biblical accounts of Jesus and none say he was delusional and none speak about any delusional behaviour. There are seperate accounts of Jesus from seperate people in the bible. Historians accept that most are authentic. So we would have to be saying that seperate people that did not know each other and used different sources were all coincidently comeing to the same conclusions. People may not believe the supernatural events associated with Jesus but they do support the narative of what he stood for and taught which was not delusional.

Soldiers are not trained to put themselves in the line of fire to get killed, they aren’t trained to give up their lives for a greater good. If an individual soldier does this, its because he doesn’t see any other option. Its not like he is all powerful and has the ability to save the day without killing himself!
There are plenty of examples where soldiers made the choice to put themselves in danger and even certain death to save others when they had the choice to not do this and stay alive.[/quote]
Check out the movie Hackshaw Ridge based on a true story. I suggest you read some of the true stories of how soldiers sacrificed their lives for others in war. For example

Medal of Honor – John R. Fox Sacrificed Himself by Deliberately Calling an Artillery Strike on his Own Position
Medal of Honor - John R. Fox Sacrificed Himself by Deliberately Calling an Artillery Strike on his Own Position


If your God has the ability to do anything, he has the ability to forgive sins without sacrificing an innocent person. The fact that he would insist on someone dying shows his character; the fact that you would attempt to defend such an act shows yours.
So your saying soldiers do not sacrifice their lives in war becuase they do not train for it. Why then do so many articles say soldiers have sacrificed their lives. Why use this language.

A soldier who ends up putting himself in the line of fire to save others does not think that he will end up in that situation. Some choose not to put themselves in that position if the situation came up. But some do and they are normally the ones who are awarded medals of honor. There is even a war medal called the Sacrifice Medal.

Sacrifice Medal
Sacrifice Medal - Wikipedia

The Cambridge dictionary definition of sacrifice.
to give up something that is valuable to you in order to help another person:

That is exactly waht some soldiers do in war by giving up their lives which is obviously valuable to them to help another person/s ie other soldiers.

That is exactly what God did with his Son to save us from sin and death.
John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

You obviously do not understand why God sacrificed his Son for us and why Christ was obedient to His father so that this could be fulfilled. Once sin had entered the world from Adam it set off a chain of events that would condem us to the power of sin and eternal death. Christs sacrifice broke that power and offered us salvation. It was the only way to do this so that our freewill and independence was maintained and we could be complete humans. We now have a choice and can defeat the power of sin and eath.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is just like any moral issue. We would have to determine whether a person at a certain age cannot understand what is going on regarding sex and be taken advantage of. So if two states disagree on the issue alltogether then someone is going to be right and the other wrong
Which makes my point; which is, everything under the category of rape is not harmful. After all, both states can’t be right!

But others besideCharlies fan club said he was delusional and we could see from his acts. There are non biblical accounts of Jesus and none say he was delusional and none speak about any delusional behaviour. There are seperate accounts of Jesus from seperate people in the bible. Historians accept that most are authentic. So we would have to be saying that seperate people that did not know each other and used different sources were all coincidently comeing to the same conclusions. People may not believe the supernatural events associated with Jesus but they do support the narative of what he stood for and taught which was not delusional.
Most of the non-biblical accounts of Jesus was still written by his fan club; whether it be from the Koran or gnostic gospels; but even if he was sane; there have been plenty of crooked religious leaders who were not seen as delusional. Jim Jones was seen as a good man by many of the political leaders in the USA, David Koresh was not seen as delusional; just because someone believes they are divine doesn’t mean they are going to be acting delusional.

There are plenty of examples where soldiers made the choice to put themselves in danger and even certain death to save others when they had the choice to not do this and stay alive.
Check out the movie Hackshaw Ridge based on a true story. I suggest you read some of the true stories of how soldiers sacrificed their lives for others in war. For example

Medal of Honor – John R. Fox Sacrificed Himself by Deliberately Calling an Artillery Strike on his Own Position
Medal of Honor - John R. Fox Sacrificed Himself by Deliberately Calling an Artillery Strike on his Own Position


So your saying soldiers do not sacrifice their lives in war becuase they do not train for it. Why then do so many articles say soldiers have sacrificed their lives. Why use this language.

A soldier who ends up putting himself in the line of fire to save others does not think that he will end up in that situation. Some choose not to put themselves in that position if the situation came up. But some do and they are normally the ones who are awarded medals of honor. There is even a war medal called the Sacrifice Medal.

You obviously do not understand why God sacrificed his Son for us and why Christ was obedient to His father so that this could be fulfilled. Once sin had entered the world from Adam it set off a chain of events that would condem us to the power of sin and eternal death. Christs sacrifice broke that power and offered us salvation. It was the only way to do this so that our freewill and independence was maintained and we could be complete humans. We now have a choice and can defeat the power of sin and eath.

There are plenty of examples of soldiers going outside of their training and acting on their own, but as I said before, soldiers are not TRAINED to sacrifice themselves in the line of duty.

If your God has the ability to do anything, he should have the ability to forgive sin without bloodshed. The fact that he would put a system in place that requires bloodshed in order to forgive sin? Especially when he made them in a way that he knew would lead to sin? That would be like breaking a mans legs then punishing him because he cannot walk! Some things are indefensible; this is one of them.

If the Moonies religious cult were sacrificing adult humans as a part of their religious rituals, would you defend that? Or do you only defend it when your guy does it, but point a finger at everyone else who does it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.