The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane is arguing that non-believers should not feel morally obliged to do good at all and that to me a philanthropist should be no different to a sex killer but the existence of the conscience proves him wrong. My conscience tells me which of those is good and bad. We may not be punished for doing wrong after we die but we still feel compelled by our consciences just as much as a believer. The only difference is we use reason to inform our consciences instead of taking a risk by overruling reason for a version of morality that is in all likelihood just the subjective morality of ancient Israelites masquerading as absolute morality.

No, according to Wolfsbane (and according to you if you really believe in the Gospel of Discworld) the polarities of your conscience are not good and evil at all, but simply arbitrary positions that you or others have chosen).

Absolute morality asserts that certain actions (let's say torturing babies for fun) are wrong in any and every context. Relative morality says that in our current culture and context we have chosen to regard torturing babies for fun as wrong, but given a different set of circumstances we might well regard the practice as just fine.

Let's take a human being whose conscience actually sees nothing wrong with torturing babies for fun. Absolute morality would say that person is twisted (either very sick or very evil). Relative morality would agree that person deviates from the norm, but must admit that, in a different set of circumstances, his morals would be OK. In other words, his problem is just that he's different.

Until the existence of your God and his involvement in the bible is proven, you cannot assert that what you follow is absolute morality, just that you believe it to be so. Until then its just one more type of subjective morality

Actually, this being Ireland rather than North Korea, I can assert it all I want. And you are entitled to choose to believe something entirely different, even if you are in a minority in doing so.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

No, according to Wolfsbane (and according to you if you really believe in the Gospel of Discworld) the polarities of your conscience are not good and evil at all, but simply arbitrary positions that you or others have chosen).

Absolute morality asserts that certain actions (let's say torturing babies for fun) are wrong in any and every context. Relative morality says that in our current culture and context we have chosen to regard torturing babies for fun as wrong, but given a different set of circumstances we might well regard the practice as just fine.

To even use the word morality in what you describe as relative morality doesn't make any sense, it's nothing more than an arbitrary decision. Human beings are not as free as you think. You acknowledge the existence of conscience but then describe something that could only come about if people fought their consciences every step of the way. And that's because our consciences instinctively know that killing babies is wrong and if someone tried to say otherwise they'd be shot down. What you're describing as relative morality would be better described as a dissociative disorder. People do think the way you describe but they are considered mentally ill and MRI scans can often shown the exact part of their brain that's defective. If our consciences changed to that degree human beings would no longer be capable of living in groups. We'd have to go back to being lone hunters and would in all likelihood die out very shortly afterwards

Not to mention the fact that it would be almost impossible because someone who had a conscience that showed no regard whatsoever for other human beings (effectively someone without a conscience) would be very unlikely to breed with enough people to pass on this faulty conscience and allow it to take over as the dominant one of the species. That's evolution at work keeping out bad mutations, both genetic and memetic

Also, I have acknowledged long ago that absolute morality is superior assuming the thing that's being taken as absolute is absolutely good (which I don't think christian morality is). It's better because it gives a call to an absolute authority who wrote it making it more difficult to question. But there are two points about this

1. The fact that absolute morality is more difficult to question does not mean that with relative morality no one has any right to tell anyone they're wrong, just different. Society tells people right from wrong through laws and society is guided by a conscience that evolved to allow them to live in groups. It's not perfect but neither is it an arbitrary decision where everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's as you suggest
2. I don't understand why you keep arguing the benefits of absolute morality because, although I have accepted it would be superior, I don't think that such a thing exists. You might as well be arguing the benefits of the flying car you think you have because the answer would be the same: "yes but you don't have one so what's your point?"
   You must first prove that you have absolute morality before you go about telling me how much better it is

Yes, absolute morality is better than relative but relative morality masquerading as absolute as I think christian morality is, is not only not as good as relative morality but can be extremely dangerous because you can't argue with someone who thinks they're doing God's work
. That same call to authority can be used for evil too

PDN wrote: »

Actually, this being Ireland rather than North Korea, I can assert it all I want. And you are entitled to choose to believe something entirely different, even if you are in a minority in doing so.

Sorry of course you can say whatever you want. I can assert that there's an invisible pink unicorn standing next to me if I want because its a free country. My point is that this assertion is a baseless assumption on your part until you furnish us with the proof to back it up

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, according to Wolfsbane (and according to you if you really believe in the Gospel of Discworld) the polarities of your conscience are not good and evil at all, but simply arbitrary positions that you or others have chosen).

Absolute morality asserts that certain actions (let's say torturing babies for fun) are wrong in any and every context. Relative morality says that in our current culture and context we have chosen to regard torturing babies for fun as wrong, but given a different set of circumstances we might well regard the practice as just fine.

If that is what Wolfsbane is arguing he is getting mighty confused.

Simply because a moral position is subjective does not mean a person cannot apply it absolute. I believe rape is absolutely wrong. It is wrong in all context that I can think of. That is my subjective opinion, but that does not mean I respect the views of those who disagree with me, nor that I feel that in certain contexts or at certain times it would be ok

PDN wrote: »

Let's take a human being whose conscience actually sees nothing wrong with torturing babies for fun. Absolute morality would say that person is twisted (either very sick or very evil). Relative morality would agree that person deviates from the norm, but must admit that, in a different set of circumstances, his morals would be OK. In other words, his problem is just that he's different.

Why must it admit that? Think about it for a minute, it would be OK according to whom exactly? It is already OK according to him. What force or logic is going to compel that it is ok to anyone else?

Wolfsbane has never explained why one is required to respect the moral position of those we disagree with in a subjective moral system. I see no reason we have to do this.

Perhaps you can explain?

The Mad Hatter

We seem to be hitting a slight stumbling block in understanding the difference between society and individuals.

PDN - can you think of any situation wherein the torture of babies would be anything other than a detriment to a society? Because until it is, it'll be immoral to all.

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

PDN - can you think of any situation wherein the torture of babies would be anything other than a detriment to a society? Because until it is, it'll be immoral to all.

I can think of one. Not so much torturing but killing. The Chinese government's one child policy has resulted in many deaths of female babies.

But of course that situation is a desperate reaction to an immoral policy from a dictatorship government and has resulted in an over population of men. It's not actually good for society, it's a reaction to another policy that is bad for society. No one sat down and convinced anyone that there is nothing morally wrong with killing babies, just that circumstances forced them to

philologos

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

PDN - can you think of any situation wherein the torture of babies would be anything other than a detriment to a society? Because until it is, it'll be immoral to all.

Wasn't that the point? You've pointed out that humans do regard some aspects of morality as absolute.

If we are truly relativists, the scenario of genocide may be appalling for you, but for others it may as well be a fun Sunday afternoon activity for when they are bored. There is no absolute, each to their own.

However, now you are saying that certain things are absolutely wrong and certain things are relative. At least the Christian is being consistent in saying that there is an absolute standard for right and wrong in assessing all things.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Wasn't that the point? You've pointed out that humans do regard some aspects of morality as absolute.

If we are truly relativists, the scenario of genocide may be appalling for you, but for others it may as well be a fun Sunday afternoon activity for when they are bored. There is no absolute, each to their own.

However, now you are saying that certain things are absolutely wrong and certain things are relative. At least the Christian is being consistent in saying that there is an absolute standard for right and wrong in assessing all things.

If there was ever a situation where the killing of babies was of benefit to society, such as a man with a nuclear weapon using babies as hostages then if all other avenues of stopping him were exhausted it would be acceptable to kill the babies because the alternative would be the babies dying along with millions of others. Killing babies is not absolutely wrong regardless of context.

A Christian is not being consistent, he is being overly simplistic by not taking context into account and is taking as absolutely right and wrong things that are in all likelihood not absolutely right and wrong. A Christian is also forgetting that what Christians consider moral now is not what Christians considered moral in previous generations, especially with regard to slavery and women's rights. Their morality is just as changeable as everyone else's

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

We seem to be hitting a slight stumbling block in understanding the difference between society and individuals.

PDN - can you think of any situation wherein the torture of babies would be anything other than a detriment to a society? Because until it is, it'll be immoral to all.

I thought of another case where child torture is considered beneficial to society by some: female genital mutilation. As with many things that are considered immoral by all but those involved it has religious motivations, which is of course the problem with getting your morality from an intangible yet unquestionable authority instead of reason

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wasn't that the point? You've pointed out that humans do regard some aspects of morality as absolute.

Do you guys get though why that doesn't require universal/objective morality? That a person can realise that their morality is "just" their opinion, yet apply it absolutely, to every instance of what they consider to be immoral?

Christians do exactly the same thing, yet think that God's opinion is some how objective.

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are truly relativists, the scenario of genocide may be appalling for you, but for others it may as well be a fun Sunday afternoon activity for when they are bored. There is no absolute, each to their own.

Why each to their own?

Why if I see someone doing something that I find immoral do I have to leave them to it?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Why each to their own?

Why if I see someone doing something that I find immoral do I have to leave them to it?

Not to mention the fact that non-believers generally use the rule that if what you're doing harms others it's wrong. The phrase "each to their own" does not apply in that case because someone is not keeping to their own and needs to be corrected

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Wasn't that the point? You've pointed out that humans do regard some aspects of morality as absolute.

No - you're not getting this. It's not absolute. It's just that the torture of babies has absolutely no societal benefit whatsoever. That's what makes it immoral internationally.

If we are truly relativists, the scenario of genocide may be appalling for you, but for others it may as well be a fun Sunday afternoon activity for when they are bored. There is no absolute, each to their own.

No. Individuals and societies are not the same thing. I wonder why you didn't quote that part of my post, as it was by far the more important part.

Turtwig

Rightt,

I'm gonna try and take this off in a tangent. Sam and Wicknight (and many others:)) have explained over and over again how our biology has given us a conscience and that, in turn, determines our morals.

How does Christianity explain the presence of conscience, more precisely how does it explain the presence of people naturally born psychopaths who have defunct consciences from BIRTH?

Surely, if God is the objective Morality he would not have included natural amorality into this world. Unless of course, your idea (which is all it is, until you can tell us where in the bible it is stated) of God being the absolute morality is flawed...that or the morality we've got from God is now flawed because of Adam and Eve which again leaves us with the question how can Christians have absolute morals??

Also, if I understand correctly, it's only when ye die do ye actually know if ye've been perfectly behaved by God's Objective Standards. Ye spend ye're whole life trying to achieve those standards, and many of ye admit that some of ye never will. And if God is the eternal being and if, by Adam and Eve we are all flawed, then what's to say we can actually still understand his objective morality in the first place?

Also, what's to the say, an Atheist can't reach the moral standards set by God but still fail in the faith ones??

Go on tear me apart

postcynical

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

We seem to be hitting a slight stumbling block in understanding the difference between society and individuals.

PDN - can you think of any situation wherein the torture of babies would be anything other than a detriment to a society? Because until it is, it'll be immoral to all.

If I may butt in, how about the example of innoculating babies with chicken pox or whatever. It's not sadistic torturing but it is adults willingly forcing babies to suffer. It's beneficial both to the child (in the long run) and to society.

Christian morality is not a set of proscriptions. Each and every choice we make has a moral value. We choose our way or God's way. God's way is always the right way. If our choices always seem neutral, then we're not fully alive (i.e. not alert to God's presence).

Morality is absolute and objective. We all have our own subjective moral codes which we are aware of as imperfect, as God has written His laws in our hearts. Christians measure our moral codes against God's standard.

If we find ourselves in a bad situation where every course of action leads to a bad outcome, this is through bad previous choices. In this case we are trapped and have to sin and appeal to God for mercy and wisdom to avoid sin in the future. Morality and reason are both gifts from God and both are absolute and objective. They help us to be the people we were created to be.

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Rightt,

I'm gonna try and take this off in a tangent. Sam and Wicknight (and many others) have explained over and over again how our biology has given us a conscience and that, in turn, determines our morals.

How does Christianity explain the presence of conscience, more precisely how does it explain the presence of people naturally born psychopaths who have defunct consciences from BIRTH?

Surely, if God is the objective Morality he would not have included natural amorality into this world.

Amorality entered via free-will. Both the demons and man were created perfect, sinless, moral. The demons, and later man, fell into sin when they rejected God's command and did their own thing.

Unless of course, your idea (which is all it is, until you can tell us where in the bible it is stated) of God being the absolute morality

Sure. Many places, but here is a sample:
1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

Isaiah 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

‘ I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

... 24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:

“ I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
25 Who frustrates the signs of the babblers,
And drives diviners mad;
Who turns wise men backward,
And makes their knowledge foolishness;

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’
...12 I have made the earth,
And created man on it.
I—My hands—stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “ For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “ Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”

36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

is flawed...that or the morality we've got from God is now flawed because of Adam and Eve which again leaves us with the question how can Christians have absolute morals??

We can have absolute morals because God reveals them to us. That we do not observe them perfectly, that is another matter.

Also, if I understand correctly, it's only when ye die do ye actually know if ye've been perfectly behaved by God's Objective Standards.

No, we know now that we have not been perfectly behaved.

Ye spend ye're whole life trying to achieve those standards, and many of ye admit that some of ye never will. And if God is the eternal being and if, by Adam and Eve we are all flawed, then what's to say we can actually still understand his objective morality in the first place?

He reveals it, but we do not perfectly understand it or practice it. However, we press on to that mark.

Also, what's to the say, an Atheist can't reach the moral standards set by God but still fail in the faith ones??

An atheist can observe many of God's laws - Do not murder, for example. What he can't do is keep his heart free of unjust anger, which is incipient murder:
Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Go on tear me apart

Sensible questions deserve respect. Glad to address them.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill said:

I'm not talking about recognising the benefits of something - I'm talking about whether one ought to do it or not.

If something has benefits, ought you to do it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Am I immoral if I do something that benefits me but impoverishes another?

Depends on the circumstances. There are no absolutes, circumstances determine the morality of actions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God is real, the theist who rejects God's way is being immoral. If materialism is real, the materialist who rejects all morality is not being immoral.

If someone rejects all morality then they are being immoral

wolfsbane wrote: »

Slavery of the innocent was never moral.

Innocent is a point of view.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I'm glad you admit no action is good or bad in itself, it depends on the context. Take the case of Alan Turing, the computer genius. He reported a burglary in his home, naming the person. The police asked how he knew this man and Turing said he was a friend (relative?) of Turing's male lover. Turing was then arrested, charged and found guilty of gross indecency.

By your logic, he was guilty of immorality. So if you had been around then, you would have condemned him for his homosexuality? For that was society's moral code back then.

By my logic, he was not guilty of immorality as he had done nothing that could be construed as immoral outside of a flawed absolutist religion informed idea of morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate your honesty. But this is good news for paedophiles, murderers, etc. They are not immoral people, they are only immoral in other people's opinions -and those opinions are really delusional.

While you can say that they are only immoral in other peoples opinions, that doesn't make the people with those opinions delusional.
You try to act as if - what a comment on the bankruptcy of materialism![/QUOTE]

It was directed at the absolutists, such as yourself.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane:
I'm not talking about recognising the benefits of something - I'm talking about whether one ought to do it or not.
If something has benefits, ought you to do it?

Only if one believes doing good is mandatory. If it is just an option to doing evil, then no. Materialism says good and bad things are only options, not good or bad in themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Am I immoral if I do something that benefits me but impoverishes another?
Depends on the circumstances. There are no absolutes, circumstances determine the morality of actions.

What is the test for whether an action is morally good or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If God is real, the theist who rejects God's way is being immoral. If materialism is real, the materialist who rejects all morality is not being immoral.
If someone rejects all morality then they are being immoral

Don't you mean amoral? Or are you really saying amorality is immoral? By whose standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Slavery of the innocent was never moral.
Innocent is a point of view.

That makes sense, if morality is just subjective, just a point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I'm glad you admit no action is good or bad in itself, it depends on the context. Take the case of Alan Turing, the computer genius. He reported a burglary in his home, naming the person. The police asked how he knew this man and Turing said he was a friend (relative?) of Turing's male lover. Turing was then arrested, charged and found guilty of gross indecency.

By your logic, he was guilty of immorality. So if you had been around then, you would have condemned him for his homosexuality? For that was society's moral code back then.
By my logic, he was not guilty of immorality as he had done nothing that could be construed as immoral outside of a flawed absolutist religion informed idea of morality.

Society said he was immoral, and I thought your position held that society determined morality. Or are you now saying morality is down to the individual?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I appreciate your honesty. But this is good news for paedophiles, murderers, etc. They are not immoral people, they are only immoral in other people's opinions -and those opinions are really delusional.
While you can say that they are only immoral in other peoples opinions, that doesn't make the people with those opinions delusional.

It does if they think their morality is any more valid that the paedophiles, rather than morality being just a point of view of the individual/society.

You try to act as if - what a comment on the bankruptcy of materialism!
It was directed at the absolutists, such as yourself.

Er, No, it was the atheist Death commenting on our need of a meaning/morality if we are to be human:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Wolfsbane has never explained why one is required to respect the moral position of those we disagree with in a subjective moral system. I see no reason we have to do this.

Being a rational being, not just one controlled by emotions, you should see that your morality is only one of countless others. Subjectively it seems the best, but objectively - since there is no absolute standard - it is no better or worse than the next man's.

Of course you may still disrespect counter-moralities, but you have no rational defence for doing so - just that you feel like it.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, it exists in all men - but its witness is there to a greater or lesser extent. Those who repeatedly violate it find themselves hearing it less and less. Evil becomes more comfortable.

Neither do I think you deny the existence of conscience. You explain its existence materialistically of course, rather than it being spiritual in origin.
So do you not think that a non-believer's conscience can make them feel morally obliged in any way?

Of course a non-believer's conscience can make them feel morally obliged! That is its God-given function.

What I'm saying is that the materialist must regard such a feeling of moral obligation as a mere biological conditioning and as such he may choose to ignore it without being actually guilty. He may feel guilty, but rationally he knows he is not guilty.

You say those who do this are psychopaths or whatever - but even if they all are, that makes no difference to their logical consistency. They are behaving consistently with their materialist beliefs. You and the other moral materialists are behaving as if materialism were untrue, as if there really was an absolute morality (as your Death interview aptly puts it).

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Materialism has no morality and the materialist cannot consistently claim any action is immoral. It is only immoral in someone's opinion.
As opposed to what? Only immoral in God's opinion? That is the same thing. And opinion is an opinion is an opinion. It is up to you to follow it or not, based on your decision whether you should. That holds whether it is God's opinion, your parents opinion, or your own opinion.

The difference is: if God is who He says He is, His opinion is reality, whereas ours only approaches it to a greater or lesser degree.

Are you obliged to follow the word of God? Since we are supposed to have free will, no you aren't.

Free-will does not remove the obligation, it just provides the possibility of failing the obligation.

Do you do it because you fear punishment if you don't?

Partly.

Or because you feel it is the right thing to do?

Mostly.

If that is the case how did you determine it was the right thing to do without forming your own moral decision

I don't. But my moral decision is not a standard - it is a response to a standard.

Really this shouldn't be that difficult a concept for you to grasp. Humans are under no obligation to follow God.

Of course they are - if God exists.

You choose to follow God, because you believe it the right thing to do. That is a moral decision you formed on your own (I'm assuming you aren't following simple out of fear).

Correct.

Atheist follow their own ideas of morality as well because they feel it is the right thing to do. We just have a lot more of them, where as you have one, follow the Bible, and get the rest second hand.

Correct. But the moral decision is not the morality. We both refer to a moral standard and choose to obey it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But you guys have everything staked on it, so the pretence is more comfortable than facing the facts.
But your "facts" are the product of a mind that can't understand following morality that isn't dictated from authority, even though the process if very similar.

I see the rationality of following the dictates of my Authority if He is real.

I see no such rational obligation on the materialist. He may rationally choose to conform to a morality for the benefits he wishes to gain, but he cannot say that he is really morally obliged to do so.

You hear God's morality in the Bible and you rationalise that it is moral thing to do to follow that morality.

Correct. If the Bible is true, then it is rational to obey it.

That is your moral decision, you came up with it all on your own.

Correct.

I determine a moral decision based on a number of basic axioms and rationalise that it is the moral thing to do to follow that morality.

But, if materialism is true, you know your morality is a fiction invented by yourself in response to a biological conditioning.

The only difference is that you seem to believe you can't do that unless the morality is coming from an authority higher than oneself.

You have never explained why that is the case, yet you seem to think that use materialists have to agree with you.

You can pretend your morality is binding, but you know it is not - if materialism is true. If God is true, my morality IS binding.

We don't, shockingly enough. I have no problem following morality that is not transcribed by a god.

Certainly, but doing so in the belief the morality is meaningful - that is delusional.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God is, and this is also a definition fundamental to this board, the God revealed in the Bible.
Yes but the God revealed in the Bible could be wrong. It could be illogical.

As Malty_t suggests you can't just define something and then use that definition as justification for the idea that the thing is the way you say it is.

A definition by itself means nothing, particularly if you are trying to demonstrate a point.

The point I am trying to demonstrate is valid whether God is real or not.

If I believe Him to be real, it is rational for me to hold that I am obliged to observe His morality.

If you believe materialism to be real, it is not rational that you consider yourself obliged to obey any morality.

Consistency in one's beliefs is all I'm asking. Once that is established, we can have a proper discussion on reality.

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

Well perhaps the difficulty here may rest in what you mean by “obliged”. Do you mean to a higher power that you call God? If that’s the case then obviously I don’t hold that anyone is obliged (to God) to behave morally. But evolutions has given me, with my morality, something which walks, talks, eats, sleeps and everything else exactly like this obligation you feel to obey God’s laws. Perhaps you can make more sense of this trait, and even find it more logically satisfying, if you couch it in the context of God and a notion of objective right and wrong. I think this unnecessary but we are still “feeling” the same thing.

No, I'm not referencing it to God. I'm just asking if you are actually obliged to observe any morality rather than feel you are so obliged.

I might feel I need to pee, but rationally know that I emptied my bladder a minute ago. I recognise the feeling is a result of cystitis, not a full bladder.

Is your feeling of obligation the recognition of a moral reality or a mere biological conditioning?

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm not referencing it to God. I'm just asking if you are actually obliged to observe any morality rather than feel you are so obliged.

I might feel I need to pee, but rationally know that I emptied my bladder a minute ago. I recognise the feeling is a result of cystitis, not a full bladder.

Is your feeling of obligation the recognition of a moral reality or a mere biological conditioning?

If you talk about obligation then surely there has to be a subject of that obligation? To whom / what are you obliged to be moral?
Your continuing reference to “feeling obliged” to be moral suggests that I might have the potential to possibly go the way of the characters in Hitchcock’s “Rope” and use some intellectual acrobatics to enable me to rationalize some gross violation of my moral code. As has been pointed out already, the bounds placed on us by evolution (relative though I recognize them to be) are considerable more restrictive than you seem to appreciate. I might occassionsly discard advice given from an (informed) authority (e.g. a doctor or a lawyer) having reasoned that I am sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent to make a decision alone. But my moral framework is simply not susceptible to a similar intellectual assault. It is a different ball game. Morality and conscience on the one hand and intelligence and reasoning on the other are different domains.
For me morality is relative. But for a number of core issues (murder, rape, theft), these are in practice, absolute. If somebody willfully takes another life, then I do not fudge in any way about seeing this as immoral and I most certainly do not, as you seem to suggest, entertain any notion that it is a matter for the killer alone to assess the morality of his action. It may not be true absolute morality, but the differences are of no practical consequence.

monosharp

This just boogles the mind.

On the same website, in the same museum they claim that evolution is impossible, especially in creating new species.

Then I came across this gem.



So let me get this straight.

1. They claim that evolution could not have produced the diversity of life that we see today.
2. They then claim that Noah saved about 10,000 species and over a period of 8,000 years these 10,000 species diverged into all the species we have today. :pac:

Please someone, first of all how can they claim evolution is false and then suggest that 10,000 species diverged into 1,000,000+ species today in a pathetically short 8,000 years which is hundreds of times faster then scientists claim evolution actually works.

Please someone, explain this 'logic' to me.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if one believes doing good is mandatory. If it is just an option to doing evil, then no. Materialism says good and bad things are only options, not good or bad in themselves.

I didn't ask if you ought to do things that are good, I said if something has benefits, ought you to do it? Dont you believe that you should do things that you perceive as benefitting you or your loved ones? I do, and I see a deeply thought-out and argued morality as on of those things.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What is the test for whether an action is morally good or not?

There is no test, because as I have already said, there are no absolutes, there is no universal measure to use, all situations must examined separately.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't you mean amoral? Or are you really saying amorality is immoral? By whose standard?

No intelligence can ever be truly immoral, not if that intelligence is supposed to be able to consider the consequences of his actions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That makes sense, if morality is just subjective, just a point of view.

What were the Canaanites guilty of when god ordered their extermination?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Society said he was immoral, and I thought your position held that society determined morality. Or are you now saying morality is down to the individual?

Society does determine what is immoral, but I am not part of that society so why would I support that societies idea of morality? Also, while societies essentially decide what is moral, it isn't a fixed notion, what society thinks is moral or immoral will change as society changes its ways of thinking of morality. I don't believe that there is any absolute morality to the universe, but I do believe there is an ideal way to reason out what a society should declare as immoral, avoiding emotive and fearful half thinking and embracing notions like informed consent and peoples right to live their life as free as is possible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does if they think their morality is any more valid that the paedophiles, rather than morality being just a point of view of the individual/society.

Ones persons idea of morality can be more valid than other persons idea of morality if the ideas are based on firmer foundations.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, No, it was the atheist Death commenting on our need of a meaning/morality if we are to be human:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

And it was directed at the type of people who believed in a morality which existed regardless of wether or not humans where there to appreciate it. The point was not an insult to people who believe in morality, but to people who need it to be something that is bigger than them in order to appreciate it.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Being a rational being, not just one controlled by emotions, you should see that your morality is only one of countless others. Subjectively it seems the best, but objectively - since there is no absolute standard - it is no better or worse than the next man's.

Of course you may still disrespect counter-moralities, but you have no rational defence for doing so - just that you feel like it.

There doesn't need to be an absolute morality for one to be better than another no more than there needs to be an absolute slice of toast to say that one is better than another. The ideal of something may only be defined arbitrarily by humans, but once it is defined, we can show how one example is better than another

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Who said the intelligent designer was God?

If the only conclusion one can draw is that life is designed because it would be impossible otherwise, but the design has such serious flaws in it that it could possibly be the work of a perfect omniscient being, then that clearly rules God out as the designer.

So I guess the designer is unknown at this stage. Some imperfect alien designed the universe and life on it. But it definitely wasn't God.

Lets see how many of the Intelligent Designers "we aren't saying it was God" pack are happy to accept that one :pac:

...Satan wants to be as God...so I guess he just might claim to be the 'Alien'Designer' of life ... but he would be WRONG ... he was, in fact, the 'Alien Destroyer' of life instead!!!!:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So when atheist evolutionists talk about morality, we need to understand they may mean anything at any time. They cannot rightly insist their morality is any better than another's.

Wicknight
Yes they can. In the same way I can say your taste in movies sucks.

....but that is just your personal opinion and therefore not in the least binding on me!!:eek:

...I happen to love Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Occams Razor.

• The universe looks designed.
• The universe's design is greatly flawed.
• Therefore the universe's designer was flawed.
• God is not flawed.
• God is not the universes designer.

Is that not the simplest, most logical, conclusion?

Why introduce unsupported complexity to reach a particularly conclusion.

Unless all this is because you are trying to reach a particularly conclusion

• The universe looks designed.
• The universe's design is is so complex and on is on such an enormous scale that it would require a designer with God-like propotions of omnipotence and omniscience.
• The universe was designed by God.

using Occams Razor, my list comes in shorter and simpler than your list ... therefore my list is the correct one!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would you not be able to condemn them as being wrong?

If you do not have a universal standard then you do not need to match the actions of the universal standard in order to say it is wrong.

Again, using the example above, your argument is like saying without a universal truth of what is or is not a bad movie I can't say "White Chicks" is a bad movie, or if I do I'm being logically inconsistent.

Think about this for a minute Wolfsbane. Why can I not say "White Chicks" is a bad movie?

...you can of course say that 'White Chicks' is a BAD movie ... but I can equally say that it is a GOOD movie .... and my view is just as valid as yours!!!

...society sometimes uses 'democracy' or 'consensus' or 'experts' to decide such questions ... BUT a majority can be wrong ... 'consensus' may be little more than 'mob rule' and an 'expert' is somebody in a suit and tie 100 Km from home!!!!!:eek::D

...powerful intersts can also 'own' so-called 'experts' or manipulate the situation to have their ideas accepted by a 'majority'.

The WORST form of dictatorship is a 'popular' dictatorship ... because they have the 'ligitimacy' and the power/resources of a 'majority' supporting their evil!!!!:eek::D

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK: Things that are wrong no matter what: If you disagree on any of them then please let us know:

Murder
Rape
Theft
Lies
Torture
Greed


Just to mention a few. Is anyone in disagreement that the above are wrong or bad?

....I'm not so sure that some people wouldn't justify all of these immoral acts ... using some 'good' out-turn to justify them.

For example murder has been justified by war mongers as they prosecute their battles, rape has been justified by 'ethnic clensers' and such like to demoralise their targets, theft has been legitimised by powerful interests who manipulate the law and/or markets to acquire other people's property for little or nothing ... or who charge exhorbitant prices just because they can!!!.

Some people lie to save themselves ... while others justify lying to save others!!!

Torture has been justified in preventing terrorists from achieving their goals and some people believe that 'Greed is Good'!!!!:D

Different societies have at various times, accept Cannabilism, Invountary Euthanasia, Induced Abortion or Human Sacrifice as morally virtuous acts ... while other societies have classified them as the deliberate killing of innocent Human Beings AKA Murder ...
...which society has been 'right' and which has been 'wrong'?
...or have they ALL been 'right' from their own perspective?
...and how CAN we actually decide WHAT is 'right' or 'wrong' without an external input from an Omnipotent Being?

There is no objective morality without God...and ALL Humans have enormous capacities for self-delusion and belief in self-serving ideas ...
..but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, indwelling each Saved Christian, is an adequate antidote to such delusion!!!:)

Spontaneous Evolution would never have caught on IF Materialists truly were the logical persons that they claim to be!!!:D
....it is a concept with less logic to it than the idea that if you plant a feather in the ground you will grow a hen!!!!