The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what of a pointless requirement since "His nature" is what ever he wants it to be, and sin is simply going against his will, which he would obviously never do, but it places no requirement on what his will actually is.

All you are really saying here is that God must do what he wants to do, not anything else. Well d'uh :pac:

No, my point is that God is unchangeably the same - He cannot change His morality - cannot justifiy the oppression of the innocent tomorrow, for He cannot do it today.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Ehh confirmation bias....are you just going to gloss over what everyone else said???

I haven't ignored what they said - it's just that they answered my point about the materialist having no grounds to condemn any action, by making a case about the value of a morality and its biological origins. They did not answer the point - lugha did.

Why did they all go off the point? Could it be they are unable to admit to themselves the only logical conclusion to materialist morality?

Maybe you will give me a Yes or No? Are materialists properly obliged to observe any morality?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what Wolfsbane?

Are you saying Christians never choose to ignore morality?

As opposed to believing we are actually obliged to observe some morality - that some things are actually right and wrong, no matter who finds them so. In fact, no matter if we choose to ignore the morality on occasions. The morality stands - we waver.

Christians too are still liable to sin. Only when they get to Heaven will they be perfect. But here they are free from the power of sin, no longer slaves to their evil passions. They fight the good fight against sinning, even if at times they lose a battle or two.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, my point is that God is unchangeably the same - He cannot change His morality - cannot justifiy the oppression of the innocent tomorrow, for He cannot do it today.

Justifying the oppression of the "innocent" tomorrow doesn't mean anything, because under Christian logic if God wants to oppress them then they aren't innocent.

He can make the the rules as he goes along because there are no actual rules. The rules are what ever he wants them to be. You guys take God as the source of all morality. If today he says killing babies is wrong then that is moral. If tomorrow he says killing babies is good that is also moral. Killing babies can be both moral and immoral at the same time because it is only what God wants. There is no conflict between the two because "moral" is what ever God says it is. There is no objective standard to match against.

There is no objective standard to measure God against, there is no objective standard God must match in order to be moral or righteous. He makes the standard, what ever he does, be it rescuing puppies from a fire to having the Israelites rape children, that is "moral"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As opposed to believing we are actually obliged to observe some morality - that some things are actually right and wrong, no matter who finds them so.

Which is what "subjective naturalists" such as myself believe. We just believe that it is our standards that we should adhere to. There is no difference. Some of us may not adhere to any standards, but then plenty of Christians do not adhere to God's standards either, so what is the difference.

The only difference is who's standards you choose to adhere to.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians too are still liable to sin. Only when they get to Heaven will they be perfect. But here they are free from the power of sin, no longer slaves to their evil passions. They fight the good fight against sinning, even if at times they lose a battle or two.

So what is the difference.

If I decide that in my opinion stealing is wrong and I steal anyway, how is that any different from a Christian reading that in God's opinion stealing is wrong and stealing anyway?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I know you were making the case for why we have morals, but lugha actually answered the question as to whether materialists are properly obliged to observe any morality.

If you'll just give a simple Yes or No.

Yes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, God is not free to do anything. He cannot act against His nature. HE is infinitely holy and UNABLE to sin. He cannot lie. He cannot make oppression of the innocent good.

Are you placing limits on a being of unlimited power? The universe is as it is because God made it so. Morality is as it is because God made it so and He could make it differently if he so chose.

Unless you're saying that God wrote down what is sinful not because he arbitrarily decided that it was sinful but that it is inherently sinful. Which would mean that it is sinful independently of God. Which means there is right and wrong without God.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So if they agree that enslaving everyone other than themselves is a good thing, it is a good thing?
It is according to them

Again you guys throw out the universal standard and then expect us to assess something based on the universal standard.

I'm expecting only a consistent understanding. By what you have said in this, I gather enslaving everyone other than themselves is neither good or bad in itself, only to the individuals/societies. For some it is good, for some bad.

So you can only say to the paedophile priest that his actions are bad in your opinion and in the opinion of many others. But his behaviour is good in his eyes and in the eyes of his fellow paedophiles. In fact, if society came to regard paedophilia ( where seduction rather than coercion was the m.o.) as merely an alternative sexuality, then you would be the minority opinion.

Is White Chicks a good movie Wolfsbane?

Never heard of it.

But you are saying one's view murder/rape, etc. is just like one's taste in movies. Some like it, some don't. Good or bad is in the minds of the individual.

That is consistent materialism - but it seems you have a problem articulating it. A simple Yes or No would have done.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I haven't ignored what they said - it's just that they answered my point about the materialist having no grounds to condemn any action

You guys keep saying that despite constant correction. It is getting really tiresome. If you are not interested in learning what atheists actually believe towards morality, if you are only interested in painting a straw man picture of what you think we believe, why are you bothering having a conversation at all.

You have never answered my question about the movie White Chicks by the way, and you have given me a good opportunity to us that example again.

I go see the movie "White Chicks" and I think it is a terrible movie. Am I able to say that, given that I assume we both agree there is no universal objective standard for whether a movie is good or bad.

Under your logic I cannot say that. I cannot condemn a movie as being a bad movie because there is no universal standard to measure it against.

See how silly and illogical your position is.

Something being my own opinion does not stop me believing it is correct. Heck it doesn't stop God, and all Christian morality is is God's opinion.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I haven't ignored what they said - it's just that they answered my point about the materialist having no grounds to condemn any action, by making a case about the value of a morality and its biological origins. They did not answer the point - lugha did.

Why did they all go off the point? Could it be they are unable to admit to themselves the only logical conclusion to materialist morality?

The only logical conclusion to materialist morality is that we subjectively condemn actions-we have to reason through why something is subjectively wrong to society before we can condemn it. You seem to think that because "materialists" hold to the fact that everything is naturally caused, that we must embrace everything that is naturally caused, which makes about as much sense as claiming that all "materialists" desire everything to fall down because gravity is naturally caused.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe you will give me a Yes or No? Are materialists properly obliged to observe any morality?

Define properly obliged.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I'm expecting only a consistent understanding. By what you have said in this, I gather enslaving everyone other than themselves is neither good or bad in itself, only to the individuals/societies. For some it is good, for some bad.

Which is the same as Christian morality. Pre-marital sex is not bad or good in of itself, it is only bad according to God. "This is bad" is not a natural fact of pre-martial sex. Nature does not make moral judgements. You cannot measure the natural state of "badness" of something. An atom is not bad, it is not good. It just is. It is only the opinion, the judgements, made by something that determine if something is good or bad. that is all Christian morality is, the judgement of God.

So what is the difference. If I say slavery is bad according to me how does that mean I cannot condemn it? It no more means I cannot condemn it that saying premartial sex is bad according to God means you cannot condemn it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you can only say to the paedophile priest that his actions are bad in your opinion and in the opinion of many others.

That is all you can say to the paedophile priest. God thinks your actions are bad. God judges your actions bad. In God's opinion your actions were bad.

Does that mean you do not condemn the priest, you don't punish him because his actions are not "bad" as a fact of existence, they are only bad because God says they are?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But his behaviour is good in his eyes and in the eyes of his fellow paedophiles.

So?

If God says to him his actions are bad he may still believe his actions are good in his own eyes. I don't think God cares, I don't think you would care. And if he thinks his actions are good and I think they are bad I don't care either.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Never heard of it.

Consider yourself lucky. Terrible terrible movie. Of course that is just my subjective opinion, that doesn't mean it actually is a terrible movie in of itself :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are saying one's view murder/rape, etc. is just like one's taste in movies. Some like it, some don't. Good or bad is in the minds of the individual.

Yes, and that has never stopped me saying a movie is bad. I don't care if you think it is good. You could have terrible taste in movies. You could be an idiot. Who knows. You having an opinion on a movie does not stop me from thinking my opinion, nor thinking your opinion is stupid.

Again all you guys are doing is making a call to authority, like a child hanging off the words of their mother or father as if they mean something more than their opinion. Father hated White Chicks, so I hate it. Father hated White Chicks so therefore it is bad.

But it all just comes back to subjective opinion. There is no universal moral standards.

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

For the materialist, morality is merely a biological conditioning which he as a rational being may properly choose to ignore or not.

As with another poster I am not sure what you mean by “properly choose”?

You seem to suggest that because I have “rumbled” the origins of morality and recognise their random nature (in the sense that a very different morality might have evolved) then the constraints imposed on me by my evolved morality are potentially less robust than if they had been “objective” Christian ones? I fail to see the logic here. You presumably, abhor the unjust taking of a human life. But you see the root of this abhorrence is in your belief that it would amount to breaking God’s laws. I would share this abhorrence but I do not couch it in the same religious terms. But for that, I am no less restrained than you in terms of any urges I might have to commit such a deed. We are both constrained to more or less the same degree, we just interpret the nature of the constraint differently. And in any case, there is little point in making arguments for the advantages of an objective moral framework unless you can establish that it is indeed objective. As you can only assert that God exists but cannot prove it then your moral framework is in turn asserted and cannot claim to be objective.

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

As with another poster I am not sure what you mean by “properly choose”?

You seem to suggest that because I have “rumbled” the origins of morality and recognise their random nature (in the sense that a very different morality might have evolved) then the constraints imposed on me by my evolved morality are potentially less robust than if they had been “objective” Christian ones? I fail to see the logic here. You presumably, abhor the unjust taking of a human life. But you see the root of this abhorrence is in your belief that it would amount to breaking God’s laws. I would share this abhorrence but I do not couch it in the same religious terms. But for that, I am no less restrained than you in terms of any urges I might have to commit such a deed. We are both constrained to more or less the same degree, we just interpret the nature of the constraint differently. And in any case, there is little point in making arguments for the advantages of an objective moral framework unless you can establish that it is indeed objective. As you can only assert that God exists but cannot prove it then your moral framework is in turn asserted and cannot claim to be objective.

Not my point. Whether my morality is truly objective or not, if I believe it to be so I am then consistent in feeling bound by it. I may not reject it without believing I am immoral.

But since you believe your morality is a biological conditioning, you are not consistent if you believe yourself bound by it. You may reject it without regarding yourself as immoral.

So you may feel rape is wrong, but you know in your rational mind that this feeling is just that - a feeling, not the recognition of a truth.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I haven't ignored what they said - it's just that they answered my point about the materialist having no grounds to condemn any action, by making a case about the value of a morality and its biological origins. They did not answer the point - lugha did.

Why did they all go off the point? Could it be they are unable to admit to themselves the only logical conclusion to materialist morality?
The only logical conclusion to materialist morality is that we subjectively condemn actions-we have to reason through why something is subjectively wrong to society before we can condemn it. You seem to think that because "materialists" hold to the fact that everything is naturally caused, that we must embrace everything that is naturally caused, which makes about as much sense as claiming that all "materialists" desire everything to fall down because gravity is naturally caused.

Not at all - for the materialist there is no 'ought'. You are free to accept or reject any morality. What you are not free to do is claim that any action is good or bad in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Maybe you will give me a Yes or No? Are materialists properly obliged to observe any morality?
Define properly obliged.

To be consistent with their materialist world-view, must they observe any morality? Or can they be consistent materialists if they reject all morality?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I haven't ignored what they said - it's just that they answered my point about the materialist having no grounds to condemn any action
You guys keep saying that despite constant correction. It is getting really tiresome. If you are not interested in learning what atheists actually believe towards morality, if you are only interested in painting a straw man picture of what you think we believe, why are you bothering having a conversation at all.

I do hear what various atheists say about morality. Some differ, but most of you seem to be saying some actions are morally wrong for everyone. I'm pointing out that materialism rules out anything being right or wrong - things just are. They might have consequences undesirable to some/most/all people, but that does not mean they are wrong.

You have never answered my question about the movie White Chicks by the way, and you have given me a good opportunity to us that example again.

I did. I said I never saw it. So I can't offer an opinion on its morality or its quality as a movie.

I go see the movie "White Chicks" and I think it is a terrible movie. Am I able to say that, given that I assume we both agree there is no universal objective standard for whether a movie is good or bad.

Under your logic I cannot say that. I cannot condemn a movie as being a bad movie because there is no universal standard to measure it against.

You and I can judge a movie as good or bad - but that judgement is indeed subjective because there is no universal standard to measure it against.

Likewise you and I can judge something as moral or immoral without recourse to a universal standard. What we are not then entitled to do is suggest the movie or action is really, in itself, good or bad. It only is.

So if you want to say murder or rape is subjectively bad to you, that's fine. What you cannot say is that it is in itself bad. Others may find it good. If materialism is true and there is no God, no Standard-Setter, then there is no good and bad. There is only is.

But if there is a God, the Standard-Setter, then everything contrary to His standards is bad.

Something being my own opinion does not stop me believing it is correct.

But it means your opinion is inconsistent with your primary belief - materialism. That's the only point I am making.

Heck it doesn't stop God, and all Christian morality is is God's opinion.

Being the Creator and sustainer of all things, His 'opinion' is the true Standard, the true, actual, real morality.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is the same as Christian morality. Pre-marital sex is not bad or good in of itself, it is only bad according to God. "This is bad" is not a natural fact of pre-martial sex. Nature does not make moral judgements. You cannot measure the natural state of "badness" of something. An atom is not bad, it is not good. It just is. It is only the opinion, the judgements, made by something that determine if something is good or bad. that is all Christian morality is, the judgement of God.

So what is the difference. If I say slavery is bad according to me how does that mean I cannot condemn it? It no more means I cannot condemn it that saying premartial sex is bad according to God means you cannot condemn it.


That is all you can say to the paedophile priest. God thinks your actions are bad. God judges your actions bad. In God's opinion your actions were bad.

Does that mean you do not condemn the priest, you don't punish him because his actions are not "bad" as a fact of existence, they are only bad because God says they are?


So?

If God says to him his actions are bad he may still believe his actions are good in his own eyes. I don't think God cares, I don't think you would care. And if he thinks his actions are good and I think they are bad I don't care either.


Consider yourself lucky. Terrible terrible movie. Of course that is just my subjective opinion, that doesn't mean it actually is a terrible movie in of itself :pac:



Yes, and that has never stopped me saying a movie is bad. I don't care if you think it is good. You could have terrible taste in movies. You could be an idiot. Who knows. You having an opinion on a movie does not stop me from thinking my opinion, nor thinking your opinion is stupid.

Again all you guys are doing is making a call to authority, like a child hanging off the words of their mother or father as if they mean something more than their opinion. Father hated White Chicks, so I hate it. Father hated White Chicks so therefore it is bad.

But it all just comes back to subjective opinion. There is no universal moral standards.

I dealt with all this in my last post, but let me underline my central point once more - it is consistent for the Christian to hold something to be immoral in the absolute sense. Really, actually wrong - not just wrong for me or in my opinion.

It is inconsistent for the materialist to say the same.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I know you were making the case for why we have morals, but lugha actually answered the question as to whether materialists are properly obliged to observe any morality.

If you'll just give a simple Yes or No.
Yes

Thank you. But why must you hold something to be morally wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, God is not free to do anything. He cannot act against His nature. HE is infinitely holy and UNABLE to sin. He cannot lie. He cannot make oppression of the innocent good.
Are you placing limits on a being of unlimited power?

No, God puts those limits on Himself, by being that sort of God in His nature.

The universe is as it is because God made it so. Morality is as it is because God made it so and He could make it differently if he so chose.

No - He cannot act contrary to His nature.

Unless you're saying that God wrote down what is sinful not because he arbitrarily decided that it was sinful but that it is inherently sinful. Which would mean that it is sinful independently of God. Which means there is right and wrong without God.

I see where you are coming from - but your mistake is in not recognising that God always existed - He is before everything else. All standards derive from Him; all that is moral is an expression of His nature.

The standards He reveals to us in the Bible are merely expressions of His nature - they are not standards that existed before God or in any way independent of God.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is what "subjective naturalists" such as myself believe. We just believe that it is our standards that we should adhere to. There is no difference. Some of us may not adhere to any standards, but then plenty of Christians do not adhere to God's standards either, so what is the difference.

The only difference is who's standards you choose to adhere to.



So what is the difference.

If I decide that in my opinion stealing is wrong and I steal anyway, how is that any different from a Christian reading that in God's opinion stealing is wrong and stealing anyway?

The difference is that the Christian is guilty of the greater crime - he has reason to believe stealing is actually immoral, while you have reason only to feel it is, but intellectually believe it is not.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Justifying the oppression of the "innocent" tomorrow doesn't mean anything, because under Christian logic if God wants to oppress them then they aren't innocent.

He can make the the rules as he goes along because there are no actual rules. The rules are what ever he wants them to be. You guys take God as the source of all morality. If today he says killing babies is wrong then that is moral. If tomorrow he says killing babies is good that is also moral. Killing babies can be both moral and immoral at the same time because it is only what God wants. There is no conflict between the two because "moral" is what ever God says it is. There is no objective standard to match against.

There is no objective standard to measure God against, there is no objective standard God must match in order to be moral or righteous. He makes the standard, what ever he does, be it rescuing puppies from a fire to having the Israelites rape children, that is "moral"

You are confusing God's right to kill any of His creation with man's right to do the same. Man has no sure right. For him to do so by his own authority would be immoral. Always.

God is not able to oppress the innocent. He may allow them to be oppressed, but only with their greater end in view. He ultimately rewards the righteous and requites the wicked.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what of a pointless requirement since "His nature" is what ever he wants it to be, and sin is simply going against his will, which he would obviously never do, but it places no requirement on what his will actually is.

All you are really saying here is that God must do what he wants to do, not anything else. Well d'uh :pac:

Point is that He CANNOT want to lie, for example.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I have to wonder, if God loved the Israelites and wanted them to kill their enemies, why didn't he just do it himself as he did with Sodom? That way his command would be carried out without any risk to his chosen people.


Now this is an outlandish theory but hear me out:

1. God had nothing to do with it
2. One of the Israelites claimed God commanded it to motivate people to do something they wouldn't normally do

:eek: Shocking I know. My theory reminds me of something but I can't quite put my finger on what

He wanted them to grow, to be strong in the faith. That doesn't come with God doing it all for us.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So if they agree that enslaving everyone other than themselves is a good thing, it is a good thing? And your idea that the next tribe ought to be respected and loved - that is an immoral thing?
Society is everyone, not just one subset deciding to enforce themselves on another. If one subset decided to enslave another they would object. They do not want to be enslaved but people are forcing them to be, therefore it is immoral. Societal consensus comes in in cases where there is disagreement. Someone could misinterpret the rules just as can happen with religious morality and think something is acceptable when it's not. In that case you need the collective will of society to explain to them that they've done wrong, usually through prison. And they can do it because they can point out that the person would not like it done to them, therefore they should not to it to others. No God required

But there are many societies. So when one society agrees that enslaving everyone other than themselves is a good thing, it is a good thing? Maybe you wish to claim universal society to overule them? In that case you are saying there is a universal morality - which you and the others denied in other posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is - but that is not my argument. I'm not debating the merits of our respective moralities - I'm pointing out that the materialist has no grounds for saying any behaviour is any better or worse than another, much less expressing moral indignation at the offender. The murderer is doing nothing essentially different than the gardener or the mechanic - he is merely rearranging matter.


I agree. But my point is that the materialist should not consider himself bound by the morality we have. He may rightly pick and choose what pleases him.
No he may not pick and choose what pleases him. He is bound by the rules of social animals, that he must treat others as he would like to be treated.

But you don't say why he is bound.

I honestly don't understand why you lot can't grasp that you don't need a big scary man in the sky to tell someone that they've done wrong because they hurt someone. As Malty_T says the world you describe where people have no concept of right and wrong is a world full of psychopaths, of people with mental illnesses. Those are the people that behave as you think an atheist should, the people who have faults in the morality centre of their brain. They do not get a rush of pleasurable chemicals when they do good so they go out and murder indiscriminately. There have even been cases where people had brain injuries and their entire personalities changed, including their moral behaviour, which pretty much proves its a function of the brain

I fully accept that you believe morality is a function of the brain - of feelings being chemically generated there. What I'm asking you is why, as a rational being - one who is able to see beyond his chemically induced feelings, you say you are bound by society's morality. You keep saying you are so bound, but offer no rational explanation. Or is it that you think we are not rational beings, but absolutely subject to our feelings?

You lot have such strong faith in God but I actually feel sorry for you tbh. You think that the whole of humanity would behave like murderous psychopaths if it wasn't for the bible.

Not at all. Conscience puts a big break on man's wickedness, as does God's providence.

I couldn't get out of bed in the morning if I had as little faith in humanity as you do. How can you even be in the same room as a non-believer without fear that he's going to rape and murder you?

I know he is heavily restrained by conscience and God's power.

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I did not mean he was emotionally free - rather, rationally free. Sure, the non-intellectual will mostly not reason through to amorality from materialism - but the enlightened materialist will. While the little people agonise over their consciences, he is able to exploit them to the full.

Of course, for practical reasons he may live according to their morals, but if the circumstances permit no retribution he can happily live like a devil. And you have no grounds to say he should not.

All I'm wanting you to face up to is the fact that, for the materialist, the serial sex-killer is no worse than the serial philantrophist.
Sigh, we're going in circles here (wish they were squares),

Enlightened materialist, what in the heck do you mean by that?
Someone who has the ability to override their conscience completely is refered to as a psychopath. Someone who gains pleasure (typically their heart rate goes down) when others would normally be conflicted (panicked/scared/troubled causes increased heart rate)is an extreme psychopath.
Psychopaths, are products of nature they do not answer to ANY moral code.

Psychopaths are materialists who allow their amorality to be expressed in ways dangerous to society. Those who don't are just enlightened materialists.

How many times, honestly will I have to say that the majority of people CANNOT ignore their conscience by rationality be they materialist or not! It is in the neurological wiring of our brain that emotion produces the first response - not rationality. Unless they can change brain wiring it is very very HARD. Unless of course they've been wired like a psychopath.

But I fully accept the emotional restraint you say is biologically caused. All I'm saying is that if materialism is true, the enlightened materialist will intellectually know he is not bound by any morality - even if he feels constrained to obey it.

All I want is for you to face up the idea that morality is a product of human nature : it is innate within us. Our conscience makes it difficult to ignore even if our rationality dictates that we should, we still may not be able to do so.

I have no bother with that. An enlightened materialist can know it is not wrong to murder, but still feel unable to do so due to his biological conditioning.

Ask yourself why would a friend who knows that they can't swim, jump in to save a friend who is drowning, only for them both have to be saved by someone else. It's usually after jumping (yes, they're still in the air!) when the rational side kicks in but it CANNOT override the conscience emotion. In fact some people remark that they didn't want to do it but their body did it anyway!
It is not easy,so even realising that morality is derived from biology is NOT enough to ignore it.

Again, no problem with that.

Interestingly, there is another way to trick the conscience:
It becomes easier to ignore morality when emotion is involved. If a person is blinded by emotional beliefs then morality is far easier to override than by rational means.

I agree.

I could stretch that to imply that a religious person (or anyone with a passionate belief) is the most vulnerable but I won't because it hasn't yet been proven - though it is speculated.* Unlike you, I follow evidence I don't accuse a type of human of being defunct if I believe them to be so.
...
*Current thinking is that ANYONE (with typical brain chemistry) is just as likely at ANY POINT to be blinded by emotion and ignore morality. [well d'uh]

Passionate beliefs are not restricted to religious people in your sense of the word. Atheistic communism has produced many passionate people.

So, in a way I guess you are sort of right it is possible for a materialist to ignore morality, but it isn't usually achieved by rationality.Likewise you can replace 'materialist' with 'non materialist' it makes no difference : Emotion conquers all, even the religious
Blinded by belief is the easiest way to defy morality.

I've no problem with that either.

But my point was not that it is possible for a materialist to ignore morality - rather that to be consistent with his materialist world-view he must acknowledge there is no right or wrong, only is.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I do hear what various atheists say about morality. Some differ, but most of you seem to be saying some actions are morally wrong for everyone. I'm pointing out that materialism rules out anything being right or wrong - things just are.

Groan ... you clearly are not listening.

Morality is a judgement. That doesn't matter if it is you or me or God, it is an assessment made by someone. Christianity rules out anything "being right or wrong" as much as materialism does. Things just are BUT people (or God) can make judgements about them. These judgements only exist in the context of the judgement, but then you are the only one who seems to have a problem with that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They might have consequences undesirable to some/most/all people, but that does not mean they are wrong.

Yes it does. That is all "wrong" is, it is a judgement some makes. If someone thinks something is wrong then it is wrong according to them. That applies whether we are talking about atheists or Christians. There is no difference. Your continual insistence that "materialism" is some how different is incorrect and tiresome

wolfsbane wrote: »

You and I can judge a movie as good or bad - but that judgement is indeed subjective because there is no universal standard to measure it against.

Does that stop you from making that judgement?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Likewise you and I can judge something as moral or immoral without recourse to a universal standard. What we are not then entitled to do is suggest the movie or action is really, in itself, good or bad. It only is.

But no one is doing that except for you.

I don't need to say that the movie is bad in of itself. I'm perfectly happy saying it is bad in my opinion because I was never working under the delusion that there was anything else.

Likewise with morality. If I say something is immoral that is in my opinion, but that doesn't matter because I never imagined there was anything else. There is only opinion.

The only people who seem to have a problem with that are people who had deluded themselves into the idea that there was a universal standard that they could appeal to to say that something is "bad" in of itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So if you want to say murder or rape is subjectively bad to you, that's fine. What you cannot say is that it is in itself bad. Others may find it good. If materialism is true and there is no God, no Standard-Setter, then there is no good and bad. There is only is.

That is true if there is a God. God can set a standard but then so can I. I can say that rape is immoral. That is my standard, it is my opinion. God can do the same thing. It no more makes "bad" a property of rape than if I do it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if there is a God, the Standard-Setter, then everything contrary to His standards is bad.

No it isn't. That is illogical nonsense. Things are no more inherently bad if God says they are than if I say they are.

If you think about it it would be theologically illogical otherwise. If raping was inherently bad it would be inheriently bad whether God existed or not, and God would be forced to conclude it was bad because it would be a fact of nature.

That is clearly not the case. It is only God's opinion on something. God's opinion means nothing more to universal nature than mine does.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it means your opinion is inconsistent with your primary belief - materialism. That's the only point I am making.

Materialism doesn't make moral decisions, so that is impossible

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being the Creator and sustainer of all things, His 'opinion' is the true Standard, the true, actual, real morality.

No it isn't. That is illogical nonsense. If you think about that for 5 minutes you will see that it is a paradoxical position, like God making a stone he can't move.

His opinion is just his opinion. It cannot be a fact of nature because God exists in nature and if it was a fact of nature God would be constrained to comply with that fact and therefore it wouldn't be his opinion.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Point is that He CANNOT want to lie, for example.

No, the point is that according to a Christian if he lies then it isn't a lie. It becomes "true" the moment he says it, because "true" is defined by what God says. The fact that it wasn't true moments before is irrelevant.

You end up with an Orwellian nightmare.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are confusing God's right to kill any of His creation with man's right to do the same. Man has no sure right. For him to do so by his own authority would be immoral. Always.

God is not able to oppress the innocent.

Yes but you get around that by saying that if he is oppressing you then you aren't innocent merely by virtue that God is oppressing you.

You define morality based not on what God is doing but on God himself. God rapes your sister, that is moral because God did it. God burns your son to death, that is moral because God did it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I dealt with all this in my last post, but let me underline my central point once more - it is consistent for the Christian to hold something to be immoral in the absolute sense. Really, actually wrong - not just wrong for me or in my opinion.

It is inconsistent for the materialist to say the same.

It is inconsistent for the Christian to say it as well.

God's opinion is not absolute, it can't be because if it was then it couldn't be his opinion. It would be a fact of existence, which would superceed God because God has to exist in existence, and is bound to logically adhere to existence, as you yourself said.

In which case God would not have a choice in deciding if something is right or wrong, he would simply be repeating the universal standard.

Since that isn't what you guys believe you move down a level and we reach the point where God's opinion, while given great authority by Christians, is only an opinion. It exists only in the context of God. If God didn't exist it would not still exist as a fact of nature.

When you guys say it is absolute morality what you are actually doing is simply making a call to authority, like asking a person who has studied every film ever made what is the best film. If he gives you an opinion that The Godfather is the best film ever made that does no more means that "best" is a property of the film in of itself any more than if God says it is the best film ever.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Yes, many people in the Bible choose to ignore their morals in deference to those in authority. It took courage to defy the rulers and do right. Daniel in the lion's den and all that.
I was more precisely referring to the people in the old testament who were quite willing to kill their own children because god told them to. This is seen as a morally acceptable act in the Bible which, frankly, is worrying.

Being God's will, it was morally right. His will is the moral standard.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

It is inconsistent for the Christian to say it as well.

God's opinion is not absolute, it can't be because if it was then it couldn't be his opinion. It would be a fact of existence, which would superceed God because God has to exist in existence, and is bound to logically adhere to existence, as you yourself said.

In which case God would not have a choice in deciding if something is right or wrong, he would simply be repeating the universal standard.

Since that isn't what you guys believe you move down a level and we reach the point where God's opinion, while given great authority by Christians, is only an opinion. It exists only in the context of God. If God didn't exist it would not still exist as a fact of nature.

When you guys say it is absolute morality what you are actually doing is simply making a call to authority, like asking a person who has studied every film ever made what is the best film. If he gives you an opinion that The Godfather is the best film ever made that does no more means that "best" is a property of the film in of itself any more than if God says it is the best film ever.

If God is the absolute, then His standards are also absolute.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you get around that by saying that if he is oppressing you then you aren't innocent merely by virtue that God is oppressing you.

You define morality based not on what God is doing but on God himself. God rapes your sister, that is moral because God did it. God burns your son to death, that is moral because God did it.

And if God lies, that is moral because God did it. But the point is God CANNOT lie. Nor can He do anything else that is immoral.

We are not dealing with a changing God, who today says it is wrong to lie but says the opposite tomorrow.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the point is that according to a Christian if he lies then it isn't a lie. It becomes "true" the moment he says it, because "true" is defined by what God says. The fact that it wasn't true moments before is irrelevant.

You end up with an Orwellian nightmare.

Not so. I can confirm that what is a lie today is a lie tomorrow, so God cannot lie means the same at all times.