What makes god moral?

You don't understand a lot of things. In this case, it would be the difference between responding to the thread and declaring that the thread shouldn't exist because I don't believe in the premise.

You'll notice, if you pull your head out, that I've never gone to a thread and said, "You're all stupid for discussing this at all." If I think it's a stupid thread, I just don't go there.

Thank you for taking the time to post an attack that's utterly apropos of nothing I said, though. I can always count on you.

I note, by the way, that you yourself have contributed nothing substantial to this topic, saying only, "Any disagreement from religious people will be viewed by me as an attack on you, and I will jump in to crow about how mean they are." Did you have anything real to contribute, or are you just like Huggy?

I thought N4mddissent pretty much said everything that needed to be said in his OP and his response to your first posting here. I agree with his point of view. I also think its futile to communicate with you as you see any argument against religion or Christianity as an attack, not to mention that you insult people and get personal in your responses. Then you misrepresent what you said in an earlier post when someone uses what you said in that post against you. And you call them an idiot for somehow misunderstanding what you wrote.

When you can post something that's relevant, discussable; and isn't dripping with dogmatic blindness, insults, and contempt; and when you understand what the OP was actually saying so that communicating with you isn't a complete waste of time and effort, then I would gladly do so. However, that isn't the case.
 
As we are already seeing, most fundamentalists I've spoken to about this issue will say that God being omnipotent gets to make the rules and therefore God is moral and just by definition, despite doing some very immoral things in the Bible if done by anything other than God (genocide, mass murder, slaughter of babies, that sort of stuff).

It's a version of "might make right" or the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

Sorry, but no. Again, you're assuming a human role for God in this. To say, "He gets to make the rules because He's stronger" is to assume that there was a playing field already in existence upon which both God and humanity were placed, and He's circumventing the preset rulebook.

How could I be assuming a "level playing field" when I've noted God is omnipotent? I don't think it is a fair inference of my post to say I suggested man is.

God doesn't "get" to make the rules in an already existing universe. He made the universe, and when He did so, He also created the rules that govern it. They're simply part of the fabric of the creation. If you don't like it, then go create your own universe and weave any rules into it that YOU like. But trying to set yourself up as a moral arbiter to God - and using the moral standard He set to do it - is just ludicrous.

So God didn't get to make the rules when he create the rules?

That makes no sense whatso ever. You are saying God created the rules. That is what I said. God gets to make the rules.

This concept is not novel, of course. One might suspect that less than scrupulous individuals, knowing this, would invoke God's authority for their actions or propositions because then it endows these actions or propositions with an unassailable moral authority. It's been going on from Moses (the genocidal mass murderer) to today's televangelists in invoke God for political purposes like abortion (even the Bible is pretty silent on the issue).

The Bible is not silent on abortion. Would that you used the same scrupulous standard of "the word doesn't appear, so it doesn't apply" when talking about the Constitution as you do for the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a prohibition on abortion doesn't appear in the Bible. God does not say thou shall not cause the early termination of a pregnancy. Please show me the Biblical passage if you contend otherwise. If anything, to the contrary, the Bible recognizes that a fetus is not the same as a living child.

That is what I meant when I said it is pretty silent on the issue. The claim that God prohibits abortion is an inference men make, and then use the moral authority of God to promote their political agenda.
 
Last edited:
I think "thou shalt not kill" does cover abortion ... what makes it debatable is when life begins, you cannot kill what is not alive. So Cec is correct in her assertion, it is covered, just the perspective isn't.
 
As we are already seeing, most fundamentalists I've spoken to about this issue will say that God being omnipotent gets to make the rules and therefore God is moral and just by definition, despite doing some very immoral things in the Bible if done by anything other than God (genocide, mass murder, slaughter of babies, that sort of stuff).

It's a version of "might make right" or the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

Sorry, but no. Again, you're assuming a human role for God in this. To say, "He gets to make the rules because He's stronger" is to assume that there was a playing field already in existence upon which both God and humanity were placed, and He's circumventing the preset rulebook.

How could I be assuming a "level playing field" when I've noted God is omnipotent? I don't think it is a fair inference of my post to say I suggested man is.

God doesn't "get" to make the rules in an already existing universe. He made the universe, and when He did so, He also created the rules that govern it. They're simply part of the fabric of the creation. If you don't like it, then go create your own universe and weave any rules into it that YOU like. But trying to set yourself up as a moral arbiter to God - and using the moral standard He set to do it - is just ludicrous.

So God didn't get to make the rules when he create the rules?

That makes no sense whatso ever. You are saying God created the rules. That is what I said. God gets to make the rules.

This concept is not novel, of course. One might suspect that less than scrupulous individuals, knowing this, would invoke God's authority for their actions or propositions because then it endows these actions or propositions with an unassailable moral authority. It's been going on from Moses (the genocidal mass murderer) to today's televangelists in invoke God for political purposes like abortion (even the Bible is pretty silent on the issue).

The Bible is not silent on abortion. Would that you used the same scrupulous standard of "the word doesn't appear, so it doesn't apply" when talking about the Constitution as you do for the Bible.

Yes, a prohibition on abortion doesn't appear in the Bible. God does not say thou shall not cause the early termination of a pregnancy. Please show me the Biblical passage if you contend otherwise. If anything, to the contrary, the Bible recognizes that a fetus is not the same as a living child.

That is what I meant when I said it is pretty silent on the issue. The claim that God prohibits abortion is an inference men make, and then use the moral authority of God to promote their political agenda.[/QUOTE]

So God didn't get to make the rules when he create the rules?That makes no sense whatso ever. You are saying God created the rules. That is what I said. God gets to make the rules.

Okay Dokay...this is my WHOLE point. This is exactly why I a non believer am on this thread.

The crazy christians think thier imaginary god makes all of the rules.

Unacceptable! For this reason I will fight you stupid fucks to my last breath.
 
Last edited:
I think "thou shalt not kill" does cover abortion ... what makes it debatable is when life begins, you cannot kill what is not alive. So Cec is correct in her assertion, it is covered, just the perspective isn't.

1. Lots of killing is sanctioned by the Bible. It is not clear it applies to something like an abortion.

2. If the Bible deemed the fetus to be alive equivalent to a born person, the fighting men in Exodus 22:25 would be put to death for causing an abortion, life for a life.

But we can debate this issue some other time. It's not what this thread is about.
 
Its thall shall not murder. Killing can be justified please do not confuse the terms.

You might want to look that scripture up......
 
Its thall shall not murder. Killing can be justified please do not confuse the terms.

You might want to look that scripture up......

The original translation said kill, it was "clarified" later. It doesn't really matter the intent of the commandment was still clear, the only reason it was changed was to reduce the number of contradictions, but meh. When people are adamantly against something they will always find flaws in it, no matter how inane they are, it's why the contention of "ask an atheist if you want to learn about the bible" holds some truth. Opponents to something will offer just as much insight as it's supporters, just from a different angle.

The only problem I have with those against abortion (I do agree that needless murder of an innocent is wrong) is that the choice to commit the act should be that of the person most effected, in the case of abortion it's the woman. Taking away their right to choose i taking the responsibility away from them as well.

However, as to morality, it's all highly subjective no matter where you are from or what position you hold, thus to expect any deity to have the same morality as us is pretty flat.
 
You are having serious difficulties with comprehension here, Cecilie.

You stated:
Once again, you're assuming a strictly human perspective, and then trying to jam God into it. AND you are still confusing "objective" with "outside of oneself" in relation to God.

If you think about it, your number two is a bit closer to the truth. "Moral" simply means "conforming to a standard of right and wrong". If God is that standard of right and wrong, then He is morality by definition.

Which brings us back to my confusion as to why you're asking the question in the first place.

Neither one of these is my personal perspective. I am not arguing for one of these and against the other. I don't believe either one is closer to the "truth". I am just demonstrating the possible situations that exist where theism and objective morality are both hypothetically accepted premises. If those are accepted for the sake of argument, then the situation is one of the two above. Either morality is independent of god or it is determined by god. I am just stating the situation. And from the content of your post, you appear to accept the 2nd situation as true. That's fine- I was just developing my argument by showing the possible situations and why the 2nd situation was the only one to which my argument was applicable.

Cecilie: People can and do have their own personal standards of moral behavior...
Me: There is no doubt that each person decides for themselves what behavior they feel is appropriate,
Cecilie: Actually, there's a lot of doubt about that statement.

Do you see that I was only agreeing with your previous statement? You are arguing against yourself. As far as disagreements with morality, there are a lot more than you admit. Suicide bombing is considered moral by some people. I think you disagree with that. I know I do. Sex before marriage, homosexuality, and sodomy are all issues where disagreements on morality may come up. People may disagree on whether drinking alcohol is immoral. What about polygamy? It is not universally considered immoral.

Use your head...

I did use my head. I presented the situation you seem to accept as true, plus alternative possibilities and analyzed all of them.

Again, use your head. WHY do you think rape and murder are immoral? Because God said they were (in this hypothetical where God exists, for those of you getting your atheistic panties in a ruffle out there). You're positing a situation where God contradicts His own nature and you then judge Him by applying His own moral standard to Him as a superior moral force yourself.

How can god contradict his own nature? That's just stupid. If god said rape and murder, then it was in his nature to order rape and murder. I'm not even arguing about the nature of god. I'm just establishing the fact that if you believe that what god commands is, by definition, moral then rape and murder would be moral if god commanded it. Simple as that. (And god did do that, but that is another discussion). I am not judging it, just simply establishing the fact for the argument. If you deny this, then logically you deny that god is the source of morality.

ME:
Now the usual argument is that religion provides an independent, objective morality as given by god,...
Cecilie:
Not quite. The argument is that religion expresses an objective morality, established by the Creator of the Universe as part of the integral fabric of that creation,...
ME:...while claiming that the morality of non-believers is essentially relativistic- it only exists as each person's subjective morality.
Cecilie:
and that any attempt to replace that with a different morality based in human perception is, by definition, subjective because it only applies to the person who holds that perspective.

Theses are exactly the same on all relevant points. What the hell do you mean by, "not quite"?

More like equally invalid at the point where they diverge from objective morality.

Hello?! The alternative to the theistic view is the atheistic view. If you believe morality comes from god, then what the hell is the objective morality you are talking about here? The argument is basically that a universe with god has objective morality established by god, while a universe without god has no objective morality. This is the argument I am describing here in preparation for refuting it. You seem to agree with my characterization of the theistic view that objective morality comes from god, but when I try to characterize the opposing, atheistic view, you still talk about it disagreeing with an objective morality. Where does this objectively morality come from in the atheistic scenario, Cecilie?

Not quite. Moral relativism is where you try to make excuses why THIS situation shouldn't have the objective moral standard applied to it. Objectively, we all believe that killing innocent human beings is immoral. Moral relativism is trying to come up with reasons why it's okay to do so THIS time.

Once again, this whole objective morality thing comes up. You're starting to make my hair hurt. Look, I described morals coming from god, right? I DONT BELIEVE THAT. I just described as part of the argument. I also present the alternative- a godless universe. I understand YOU DON"T BELIEVE THAT, but it's the other possibility being described in the argument. And moral relativism is a situation in which there is no objective morality. So it makes no sense to talk about making excuses about conflicts with objective morality. If moral relativism is true, then there is no objective morality. This is not an assertion of its truth, but merely stating a logical definition for the argument.

ME:
I proposed that:

1. If god's commands are not intrinsically moral, then there is some objective ultimate right or wrong independent of god by which we judge god's commands as moral. Thus, the benefit claimed by religion is shown false, since right and wrong exist independently of god rather than coming from god.

Cecilie:
Except that that assumes that God exists but is really just like another human. You can't posit God's existence and then immediately negate it and expect to have any kind of logical discussion. Pick one.

Damn it, Cecilie, it's not an assumption. How hard is this to understand? 1) shows why a theistic universe in which morality does not come from god is irrelevant to the argument. It's not a fucking argument. It is just a brief logical consideration and exclusion.

Me:
2. If god's commands are intrinsically moral, then they are subjective to god's whim, and additionally god's whim is subjectively interpreted by human beings.
Cecilie:
Okay, you're doing it again. God is not a human, so please stop attributing human traits to Him willy-nilly, like changing His mind about morals on a whim. He is either God, or He isn't. Pick one.

I can see no way in which your response is connected with what I said. It makes no sense whatsover. You have already said you accept morals come from god. I didn't say anything about god changing his mind, but merely said it is gods whim that determines morality. You have already agreed to this. And you are attriubting traits to god, not me. I didn't say he does or doesn't change his mind about morality. You are asserting he doesn't.

Sounds to me like what you really want to argue is that you're not obligated to be moral. If that's the case, then just go be immoral and stop wasting time trying to justify it.

If one cannot defend one's position against a logical refutation, then accuse them of being a bad person. Great argumentative style there. I postulated this argument on logical principles. My personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the logical argument presented. If you can't refute the logic, then just admit you believe stuff that doesn't make any sense.

Well, thank you SO MUCH for so neatly summing up exactly what you haven't bothered to understand about Christians.

Seriously, why do you people insist on coming in here and positing threads based on stating your misconceptions as fact? Did it ever occur to you that before asking if God is moral, you should try actually asking what Christians believe about God and morality, instead of just assuming you know and running off half-cocked?

You agreed with my argument for morality coming from god, and now claim I have misconceptions. First of all, I did not mention any particular religion at all. My argument was solely based on the theistic belief that god is the source of morality. And it holds true in those cases. Explain how my logic is flawed and what exactly is my misconception? If god told you to murder, it would be moral for you to muder. You cannot escape this and believe that god is the source of morality. If muder is wrong because god said so, then murder would be right if god said so. It's that simple.
 
I think this thread and the OP may have went way over the heads of a good number of people on USMB. I think the subject involved might've been too abstract and you're language too sophisticated for most people with a US public school education to fully comprehend. That or when the subject of God is brought up, reason flies out the window and emotions cloud the mind. Or a mixture of both and maybe some other contributing factors.

Is there a way in which you might want to simplify your argument? That could help.
 
You're asking a question that assumes there is a moral standard independent of God - assuming that God exists - and then simply stating that there must be one because "God can only act in a moral way", something you ALSO simply asserted.

If you read carefully, I think you'll see that I did not assume there is an independent moral standard. I gave two possibilities. I did mention god's actions but it would perhaps since I am referring directly to the affect on humanity to refer to god's commands to humanity. The possibilities restated are:

1) God's commands are moral judged against a standard independent of his existence- an objective standard outside of god. Or...

2) God's commands are moral by definition. God's commands are moral because they are god's actions.

If you are willing to concede god can give immoral commands, then this argument isn't really applicable, since the concession that god may give immoral commands denies religious argument that objective morality can only come from god. There is no reason to trust god if it is possible his commands are immoral.

Once again, you're assuming a strictly human perspective, and then trying to jam God into it. AND you are still confusing "objective" with "outside of oneself" in relation to God.

If you think about it, your number two is a bit closer to the truth. "Moral" simply means "conforming to a standard of right and wrong". If God is that standard of right and wrong, then He is morality by definition.

Which brings us back to my confusion as to why you're asking the question in the first place.



Which still doesn't make the way you're using them correct.



Actually, there's a lot of doubt about that statement. While there is a great deal of debate about how to apply morality to certain situations, it's striking how little disagreement there really is about the nature of morality itself. Take welfare payments as an example. The argument is essentially about what is the best and most effective way to help people who are poor get back on their feet. The argument is NEVER about whether or not it's moral to do so. That is simply understood and accepted.



Use your head. If God exists, then by definition HE is the moral standard against which actions are judged. How can you judge God immoral against Himself? (This is assuming that you're silly and hubristic enough to try to judge God at all.)



Again, use your head. WHY do you think rape and murder are immoral? Because God said they were (in this hypothetical where God exists, for those of you getting your atheistic panties in a ruffle out there). You're positing a situation where God contradicts His own nature and you then judge Him by applying His own moral standard to Him as a superior moral force yourself.



You're going to make yourself trying to be Mr. Clever with all this pointless circular logic.



Not quite. The argument is that religion expresses an objective morality, established by the Creator of the Universe as part of the integral fabric of that creation, and that any attempt to replace that with a different morality based in human perception is, by definition, subjective because it only applies to the person who holds that perspective.



More like equally invalid at the point where they diverge from objective morality.



Not quite. Moral relativism is where you try to make excuses why THIS situation shouldn't have the objective moral standard applied to it. Objectively, we all believe that killing innocent human beings is immoral. Moral relativism is trying to come up with reasons why it's okay to do so THIS time.



If you assume that God exists, then yes. The moral standard they are presenting is, by definition, objective and ultimate.



Except that that assumes that God exists but is really just like another human. You can't posit God's existence and then immediately negate it and expect to have any kind of logical discussion. Pick one.



Okay, you're doing it again. God is not a human, so please stop attributing human traits to Him willy-nilly, like changing His mind about morals on a whim. He is either God, or He isn't. Pick one.

So the moral standards dictated by religion are both subjective to the capricious whims of god and the subjective interpretations of adherents, thus making them at least as subjective and in effect relativistic as the morals of non-believers.

Sounds to me like what you really want to argue is that you're not obligated to be moral. If that's the case, then just go be immoral and stop wasting time trying to justify it.

In essence, when religious people say there really is no reason why a non-believer should not feel it is perfectly acceptable to rape and murder, by the same logic there is no reason why a religious person should not feel it is perfectly acceptable to rape and murder- if the religious person's interpretation is such that he feels like god commands it.

Well, thank you SO MUCH for so neatly summing up exactly what you haven't bothered to understand about Christians.

Seriously, why do you people insist on coming in here and positing threads based on stating your misconceptions as fact? Did it ever occur to you that before asking if God is moral, you should try actually asking what Christians believe about God and morality, instead of just assuming you know and running off half-cocked?


:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

Just an OUTSTANDING rebuttal!

Stunning in its lethal reason and crushing in it's finality.
 
As we are already seeing, most fundamentalists I've spoken to about this issue will say that God being omnipotent gets to make the rules and therefore God is moral and just by definition, despite doing some very immoral things in the Bible if done by anything other than God (genocide, mass murder, slaughter of babies, that sort of stuff).

It's a version of "might make right" or the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

This concept is not novel, of course. One might suspect that less than scrupulous individuals, knowing this, would invoke God's authority for their actions or propositions because then it endows these actions or propositions with an unassailable moral authority. It's been going on from Moses (the genocidal mass murderer) to today's televangelists in invoke God for political purposes like abortion (even the Bible is pretty silent on the issue).

Ahh.. the old God did immoral things in the bible... farce.

They're usually followed by out of context examples of God drawing a hard line and the results of which are deemed 'immoral'... but this tool wasn't even capable of that failure.
 
You were like the kid that squeeled to mom on your siblings.... Right?

Give it a rest. There is no god so all this speculation is no less rediculous than my offering.

The question what color are Mickey Mouses turds? is equally important.

Then go start yourself a thread on it, and stop wasting everyone's time.

I've never understood why people think any thread about God is just desperately crying out for them to tell everyone how they don't think God exists, and everyone is stupid for talking about something that they don't personally believe. Who asked you?

EVERONE including you can ignore my input and not waste a blink of your precious time.

The existance or non existance of god is not just something I personally believe. The question infects everthing. If your "faith" is so weak that I can knock a hole in it with the suggestion that your god does not exist then I pat myself on the back with kudos all around.

Rejecting your input on the basis of it's insipid nature, in no way speaks to the measure of anyone's faith. Your inability to advance a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument is your failure and not that of those who reject it on it's lack of merit.
 
I think this thread and the OP may have went way over the heads of a good number of people on USMB. I think the subject involved might've been too abstract and you're language too sophisticated for most people with a US public school education to fully comprehend. That or when the subject of God is brought up, reason flies out the window and emotions cloud the mind. Or a mixture of both and maybe some other contributing factors.

Is there a way in which you might want to simplify your argument? That could help.

And along comes Pub to prove your point!

Priceless! :lol:
 
What makes god moral? I hear the question put to non-believers frequently about the relativistic nature that our morality must (according to critics) be based upon. I hear how there is nothing objective- nothing above humanity to set the rules.

Well, if god exists, what makes him moral. It seems that if god can only act in a moral way, then there must be some objective moral standard in the universe independent of god by which he could be judged. If that is the case, the god is not needed.

If on the other hand, god's actions are considered moral by definition, then there is no objective morality in the universe, but indeed it is only the subjective whim of god. Furthermore, as it is relevant here on earth, it is only the subjective interpretation of the subjective whim of god that presents us with a moral basis.

If these hold, then there is either an objectively morality even in the absence of god, or the morality suggested by religion is at least as relativistic if not more so than secular morals since it is doubly subjective.

The criticism of non-believers’ ideas of morality by religionists is based on the idea that religion produces morals. That’s where it falls down completely. Religion only picked up on pre-existing customs, customs devised by humans so that they could co-exist in small groups in a hostile environment. The close connection between religion and law in many civilisations demonstrates that.

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.
 
Simple version, I think. It's hard to combine simple, concise, and complete.

There are three possible states of the universe for this argument.

1) Theistic with god not being the source of morality.

2) Theistic with god being the source of morality.

3) Atheistic (which naturally means morals do not come from god).

If 1) is true then this argument is not applicable. It is only an analysis in the context of either 2) or 3) being true.

The argument often made that there is an objective morality of which god is the source is the argument that I am addressing. The opposing position often asserted is that all morality is relative in the absence of god. If 2) is true, then the opposing position necessarily is true. While some philosophers argue that objective morality exists in an atheistic universe, that is not necessary as part of this discussion.

My argument questions the proposition that if god is the source of morality that it creates a state of objective morality. If morality is determined by god's will, it is not independent from god. Moreover, since no man can know the mind of god, it is only human interpretation of god's will that provides what is characterized as objective morality.

Therefore, we cannot say that rape and genocide are objectively immoral for two reasons. First, it is only immoral due to the will of god, and is subjective in that sense. If god changes his mind, then those acts become moral. Furthermore, since interpretation is by definition subjective, being an activity in the mind of the interpreter, it would follow that morals derived by interpreting the will of god would be subjective as well.

In conclusion, even if the premise of god's existence and the premise of god as the source of morality were conceded for the sake of argument, it would not lead us to conclude that there is an objective moral standard which humans may know and measure themselves against. Only unequivocable revelation of god's will with universal understanding would provide such a moral standard since any other situation would require a standard that would be the result of subjective human interpretation. Since it is the case that there is no complete moral standard with universal understanding, it is the case that all morals claimed to be from god are in effect based on human interpretation and cannot be assumed to be objective. The state of the matter is that all morality, whether derived from god, society, biology, or the individual mind is subjective in effect.

It is equally likely that someone will be charitable because it makes them feel good as it is that someone will do so because they believe god wills it. Additionally, I believe it would be more likely for someone to murder a child because they believe god wills it than it would be for someone to do so just because they believe that individuals are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong. So god as a source of morality does not make it any more objective and is vulnerable to the same individual relativism as the atheistic morality often condemned by religious people.
 
What makes god moral? I hear the question put to non-believers frequently about the relativistic nature that our morality must (according to critics) be based upon. I hear how there is nothing objective- nothing above humanity to set the rules.

Well, if god exists, what makes him moral. It seems that if god can only act in a moral way, then there must be some objective moral standard in the universe independent of god by which he could be judged. If that is the case, the god is not needed.

If on the other hand, god's actions are considered moral by definition, then there is no objective morality in the universe, but indeed it is only the subjective whim of god. Furthermore, as it is relevant here on earth, it is only the subjective interpretation of the subjective whim of god that presents us with a moral basis.

If these hold, then there is either an objectively morality even in the absence of god, or the morality suggested by religion is at least as relativistic if not more so than secular morals since it is doubly subjective.

The criticism of non-believers’ ideas of morality by religionists is based on the idea that religion produces morals. That’s where it falls down completely. Religion only picked up on pre-existing customs, customs devised by humans so that they could co-exist in small groups in a hostile environment. The close connection between religion and law in many civilisations demonstrates that.

Is someone giving out prizes for the number of times you can be wrong in one paragraph? The criticism of non-believers ideas of morality comes from their incredibly fuzzy, subjective, badly-thought-out nature. Trying to live your life by a moral standard that has no unchanging objectivity to it is like trying to play poker without reference to Hoyle. You can't play the game if you don't know the rules ahead of time.

As for your apparent belief that religion is some Johnny-Come-Lately outside anomaly tacked onto human history and nature as an afterthought, it's just laughable. Like it or not, religion has been part of humanity as long as it has existed, and people did NOT invent morals on their own simply to get along, because it isn't human nature to try to get along in that way without a separate motivation. Hell, you anti-religion zealots are the ones constantly harping on about how humans are just animals, nothing special or supernatural or anything about us, so why all of a sudden are we different from other animals and having unexplained urges to be nice?

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

There's a big difference between "the conundrum they face" and "the conundrum I'm convinced they face in my utterly uninvolved but nevertheless much more aware than they are wisdom". I really love the whole "This is what they're going to say, and telling you that implies that they're just TOO silly and it's not really an answer, so that I hopefully don't ever have to actually address it and show WHY it's wrong." Unfortunately, I'd like to know where you get off demanding that you should get any other answer, so it's not going to work this time.
 
What makes god moral? I hear the question put to non-believers frequently about the relativistic nature that our morality must (according to critics) be based upon. I hear how there is nothing objective- nothing above humanity to set the rules.

Well, if god exists, what makes him moral. It seems that if god can only act in a moral way, then there must be some objective moral standard in the universe independent of god by which he could be judged. If that is the case, the god is not needed.

If on the other hand, god's actions are considered moral by definition, then there is no objective morality in the universe, but indeed it is only the subjective whim of god. Furthermore, as it is relevant here on earth, it is only the subjective interpretation of the subjective whim of god that presents us with a moral basis.

If these hold, then there is either an objectively morality even in the absence of god, or the morality suggested by religion is at least as relativistic if not more so than secular morals since it is doubly subjective.

The criticism of non-believers’ ideas of morality by religionists is based on the idea that religion produces morals. That’s where it falls down completely. Religion only picked up on pre-existing customs, customs devised by humans so that they could co-exist in small groups in a hostile environment. The close connection between religion and law in many civilisations demonstrates that.

Is someone giving out prizes for the number of times you can be wrong in one paragraph? The criticism of non-believers ideas of morality comes from their incredibly fuzzy, subjective, badly-thought-out nature. Trying to live your life by a moral standard that has no unchanging objectivity to it is like trying to play poker without reference to Hoyle. You can't play the game if you don't know the rules ahead of time.

As for your apparent belief that religion is some Johnny-Come-Lately outside anomaly tacked onto human history and nature as an afterthought, it's just laughable. Like it or not, religion has been part of humanity as long as it has existed, and people did NOT invent morals on their own simply to get along, because it isn't human nature to try to get along in that way without a separate motivation. Hell, you anti-religion zealots are the ones constantly harping on about how humans are just animals, nothing special or supernatural or anything about us, so why all of a sudden are we different from other animals and having unexplained urges to be nice?

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

There's a big difference between "the conundrum they face" and "the conundrum I'm convinced they face in my utterly uninvolved but nevertheless much more aware than they are wisdom". I really love the whole "This is what they're going to say, and telling you that implies that they're just TOO silly and it's not really an answer, so that I hopefully don't ever have to actually address it and show WHY it's wrong." Unfortunately, I'd like to know where you get off demanding that you should get any other answer, so it's not going to work this time.

Thank you ms crankypants :lol:
 
The criticism of non-believers’ ideas of morality by religionists is based on the idea that religion produces morals. That’s where it falls down completely. Religion only picked up on pre-existing customs, customs devised by humans so that they could co-exist in small groups in a hostile environment. The close connection between religion and law in many civilisations demonstrates that.

Is someone giving out prizes for the number of times you can be wrong in one paragraph? The criticism of non-believers ideas of morality comes from their incredibly fuzzy, subjective, badly-thought-out nature. Trying to live your life by a moral standard that has no unchanging objectivity to it is like trying to play poker without reference to Hoyle. You can't play the game if you don't know the rules ahead of time.

As for your apparent belief that religion is some Johnny-Come-Lately outside anomaly tacked onto human history and nature as an afterthought, it's just laughable. Like it or not, religion has been part of humanity as long as it has existed, and people did NOT invent morals on their own simply to get along, because it isn't human nature to try to get along in that way without a separate motivation. Hell, you anti-religion zealots are the ones constantly harping on about how humans are just animals, nothing special or supernatural or anything about us, so why all of a sudden are we different from other animals and having unexplained urges to be nice?

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

There's a big difference between "the conundrum they face" and "the conundrum I'm convinced they face in my utterly uninvolved but nevertheless much more aware than they are wisdom". I really love the whole "This is what they're going to say, and telling you that implies that they're just TOO silly and it's not really an answer, so that I hopefully don't ever have to actually address it and show WHY it's wrong." Unfortunately, I'd like to know where you get off demanding that you should get any other answer, so it's not going to work this time.

Thank you ms crankypants :lol:

Nice of you to admit I'm right.
 
Is someone giving out prizes for the number of times you can be wrong in one paragraph? The criticism of non-believers ideas of morality comes from their incredibly fuzzy, subjective, badly-thought-out nature. Trying to live your life by a moral standard that has no unchanging objectivity to it is like trying to play poker without reference to Hoyle. You can't play the game if you don't know the rules ahead of time.

As for your apparent belief that religion is some Johnny-Come-Lately outside anomaly tacked onto human history and nature as an afterthought, it's just laughable. Like it or not, religion has been part of humanity as long as it has existed, and people did NOT invent morals on their own simply to get along, because it isn't human nature to try to get along in that way without a separate motivation. Hell, you anti-religion zealots are the ones constantly harping on about how humans are just animals, nothing special or supernatural or anything about us, so why all of a sudden are we different from other animals and having unexplained urges to be nice?



There's a big difference between "the conundrum they face" and "the conundrum I'm convinced they face in my utterly uninvolved but nevertheless much more aware than they are wisdom". I really love the whole "This is what they're going to say, and telling you that implies that they're just TOO silly and it's not really an answer, so that I hopefully don't ever have to actually address it and show WHY it's wrong." Unfortunately, I'd like to know where you get off demanding that you should get any other answer, so it's not going to work this time.

Thank you ms crankypants :lol:

Nice of you to admit I'm right.

Anything for a bit of peace and quiet :lol:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top