Morals Without God

[sandorski]

Oh. In that case, sorry. You showed up and I certainly learned my lesson... Much like Roberta and the Sedin sisters showed my Hawks the last two years. =D

They will this year.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God doesn't need money because everything comes from and belongs to God.

Even the bad things? Did cancer come from and belong to God, too?

Non-Christians naturally don't believe that but Christians know that they are merely stewards of money and other resources God puts in our care.

They may believe these things, but please do not confuse strongly held beliefs for objective facts.

At this point I don't know how to respond to your charge of the "religious "cunning" but to say that those that are, have failed in their hypocrisy to serve faithfully their God. They have failed God, and they have failed their fellow man by not being an example of the grace first shown to us in the death of Christ on the cross.

If crucifixion is your primary example of gracefulness, I'd hate to know what your idea of vicousness entails. In ordinary language crucifixion is anything but a graceful endeavor. It's rather torturous and agonizing, which are hardly synonyms for graceful.

I think it was the father of nihilism and atheist Neitchze who said that since God is dead and therefore there is no moral absolute, the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history.

[citation needed]

He has not only been proven correct, but so has his reasoning. In fact, Hitler himself was inspired by Neitchze and personally gave a copy of Neitchze's works to a friend of his named Mussolini in 1938 just two years before he led Italy into WW2.

So?

My point? There's dishonesty from people claiming to be on either side of the argument. But if you don't believe in a moral absolute, you're limited to doing only one thing: whatever it is that you damn jolly well please.

I believe in many moral absolutes, and I don't even need a God to do it! Someday when you grow up, maybe you can take your training wheels off, too! :awe:

 

[Howard]

God doesn't need money because everything comes from and belongs to God. Non-Christians naturally don't believe that but Christians know that they are merely stewards of money and other resources God puts in our care.

At this point I don't know how to respond to your charge of the "religious cunning" but to say that those that are, have failed in their hypocrisy to serve faithfully their God. They have failed God, and they have failed their fellow man by not being an example of the grace first shown to us in the death of Christ on the cross.

I think it was the father of nihilism and atheist Neitchze who said that since God is dead and therefore there is no moral absolute, the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history. He has not only been proven correct, but so has his reasoning. In fact, Hitler himself was inspired by Neitchze and personally gave a copy of Neitchze's works to a friend of his named Mussolini in 1938 just two years before he led Italy into WW2.

My point? There's dishonesty from people claiming to be on either side of the argument. But if you don't believe in a moral absolute, you're limited to doing only one thing: whatever it is that you damn jolly well please.

Hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband 'cause I'm raping everybody out there (because I'm atheist).

 

[DominionSeraph]

Without proof of why it should exist, why it matters if our society lives or fails; without that proof it is no more valuable than the chemical reactions that take place to grow my fingernails. Anything more is fundamentally inconsistent with the scientific method, because the observer has jumped past observation and made "value judgments" which Science and the Scientific Method cannot prove without omniscience. Please show me objectively why I should care about whether or not another Hitler rises to power and enslaves the entire human race. I may not LIKE it, but LIKE is subjective. I can't find any objective reason why I should care, in a Godless universe.

Very good, you have the basic concepts down. But you have failed to be objective. Your question, "why," is improper for you are presuming value in a reason. You value a reason over no reason.

To be properly objective, no reason is just as good as anything else. So you do not need a reason to value.
A value structure is instilled by evolution. So it exists. It needs no reason to be. That it has no value outside of you does not make it cease to exist, for it is not founded on itself. Evolution exists outside of you. You are its endpoint, not it yours.


It is, "objective ---> subjective," not, "subjective ---> objective ---> subjective."
Your subjective thoughts on "objective--->subjective," have no bearing on that structure. It exists outside of you. It is not dependent on you "having a reason."
Pouting about it does not say you are free from it. In fact pouting is due to a negative subjective valuation. See how that works? Any value you assign to your value structure is due to your value structure, not because you're being objective.
You can't psychologically change your core value structure because you have no place to stand from which to leverage change. Any change you make will be because of a valuation, and you won't be changing that fundamental valuation schema.
Now, you could do something that would result in brain damage, but there's still no connection within a value structure between the value of change and the change.

 

[busmaster11]

Even the bad things? Did cancer come from and belong to God, too?

They may believe these things, but please do not confuse strongly held beliefs for objective facts.

I'm more than happy to turn this into a Bible study, but I'm not qualified to be a teacher nor is the level of cynicism here going to allow for that.

Well, I'm definitely no relativist but from the perspective of the observer there is no distinction between strongly held beliefs and objective fact. This is just another way of saying that if you believe it strongly to be true, it is an objective fact to you - perhaps one that other people fail to see, but nonetheless objective fact to you.

If crucifixion is your primary example of gracefulness, I'd hate to know what your idea of vicousness entails. In ordinary language crucifixion is anything but a graceful endeavor. It's rather torturous and agonizing, which are hardly synonyms for graceful.

[citation needed]

The crucifixion is most definitely my single supreme example of the grace of God. My world view holds that man is inherently selfish, self-glorifying, fickle, and unable to be truly pious and God-loving and God-fearing. We have somehow got it in our minds that the doctrine of humanism (the notion that man is the measure of all things and we should be praised and loved for it) though we have failed in any lasting attempt to do good onto one another. If there is a supreme being who created us, he needs to serve us instead of causing wars and famines and pestilence and death. I don't believe in humanism. If there is a God, HE most definitely did not create us to serve us to the point where we are deceived into believing in our own independent superiority.

The crucifixion was God telling us that man is too depraved and blind and helpless to save itself from the punishment due it, but that by His grace, the pure Son of God, without blemish, will be provided in its place, at the exact location that He gave a lamb to replace Isaac on Abraham's altar a thousand years prior.

EDIT: I don't think Nietzsche's complete works are public domain, but you do get lots of hits with a google search on that phrase.

So?

I believe in many moral absolutes, and I don't even need a God to do it! Someday when you grow up, maybe you can take your training wheels off, too! :awe:

The irony in that statement is stunning. If my moral absolutes aren't the same as yours, where is the absolute? If I believe its okay to rape and murder little children, what right would you have to be mad?

 

[busmaster11]

Hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband 'cause I'm raping everybody out there (because I'm atheist).

You've truly embodied the wisdom of the age in that statement with your mockery.

You DO do anything you jolly well please. Held back only by a personal, arbitrary and imaginary set of morals to gain the esteem of your peers. Ask yourself what liberties you take in the dark, free from the judging eyes of your family and peers, and you'll see what I mean.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong and that I don't know you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I'm definitely no relativist but from the perspective of the observer there is no distinction between strongly held beliefs and objective fact. This is just another way of saying that if you believe it strongly to be true, it is an objective fact to you - perhaps one that other people fail to see, but nonetheless objective fact to you.

That's all well and good, but you can't convince me that their beliefs are knowledge until you can justify them. To declare that they have knowledge is therefore a presumably false statement until said justification is supplied.

The crucifixion is most definitely my single supreme example of the grace of God.

Admittedly it is a subjective evaluation, but that just doesn't seem to be very graceful to me . What does it mean that I can conceive of a more graceful means of accomplishing the same ends? I suppose my grace must be greater than your God's.

My world view holds that man is inherently selfish, self-glorifying, fickle, and unable to be truly pious and God-loving and God-fearing. We have somehow got it in our minds that the doctrine of humanism (the notion that man is the measure of all things and we should be praised and loved for it) though we have failed in any lasting attempt to do good onto one another. If there is a supreme being who created us, he needs to serve us instead of causing wars and famines and pestilence and death. I don't believe in humanism. If there is a God, HE most definitely did not create us to serve us to the point where we are deceived into believing in our own independent superiority.

If there is a God, any statements predicated of him are meaningless.

The crucifixion was God telling us that man is too depraved and blind and helpless to save itself from the punishment due it, but that by His grace, the pure Son of God, without blemish, will be provided in its place, at the exact location that He gave a lamb to replace Isaac on Abraham's altar a thousand years prior.

Why the rigmarole, though? It seems silly to go to all the trouble, and all the suffering is unnecessary. It seems like soteriological theater.

EDIT: I don't think Nietzsche's complete works are public domain, but you do get lots of hits with a google search on that phrase.

Yeah, the google searches I did seemed to contradict your claims.

The irony in that statement is stunning.

Because you do not understand its meaning.

If my moral absolutes aren't the same as yours, where is the absolute?

You are conflating "absolute" with "objective." They do not mean the same thing.

If I believe its okay to rape and murder little children, what right would you have to be mad?

I don't need a right to be mad.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You DO do anything you jolly well please. Held back only by a personal, arbitrary and imaginary set of morals to gain the esteem of your peers. Ask yourself what liberties you take in the dark, free from the judging eyes of your family and peers, and you'll see what I mean.

While that may be true of him, you haven't demonstrated that it is not also true of you and everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong and that I don't know you.

Back at'cha, smart guy.

 

[shira]

You've truly embodied the wisdom of the age in that statement with your mockery.

You DO do anything you jolly well please. Held back only by a personal, arbitrary and imaginary set of morals to gain the esteem of your peers. Ask yourself what liberties you take in the dark, free from the judging eyes of your family and peers, and you'll see what I mean.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong and that I don't know you.

I couldn't resist the opportunity to jump in here.

Your reference to "liberties you take in the dark," are you referring to masturbation? Or to oral sex? Or sex out of wedlock? Or just plain old sex for pleasure while using contraception? Are these the most damning "immoral" acts you can imagine?

Why don't you inform us by just what process a believer-in-God determines what's moral and what's not, and how that process is different from what a non-believer follows?

 

[Moonbeam]

You've truly embodied the wisdom of the age in that statement with your mockery.

You DO do anything you jolly well please. Held back only by a personal, arbitrary and imaginary set of morals to gain the esteem of your peers. Ask yourself what liberties you take in the dark, free from the judging eyes of your family and peers, and you'll see what I mean.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong and that I don't know you.

I did mention, I think, that if you love you are a prisoner, no? In order to love you have to love yourself because all hate is hate of the self. In order to love yourself you have to be worth in your own eyes. For this reason I am a prisoner. I can't do what would cause me to lose my own self respect because by my self respect I own the universe. There is nothing I can have other than my moral values because they are worth a million times what anything else is worth. I am totally selfish and would never give up my self respect for shit. My self is always aware of everything I do and I can never hide. I can't be anything if I am not conscious of who I am.

I lost my faith long ago and found what real faith is based on, self love, the trust that I and the universe are one. If you lose your faith you will fall into a deep pit, the same one I crawled out of. I wish you luck believing that the real good is somewhere out there but if you ever fail at that, there is another truth that is possible beyond where one surrenders all hope. Good luck to you either way.

 

[busmaster11]

While that may be true of him, you haven't demonstrated that it is not also true of you and everyone else.

Back at'cha, smart guy.

SHIRA and CT: Just gonna make this short but I'll respond in depth later tonight.

"Liberties in the dark" refers to anything you do when others are not watching - not just things sexual in nature. Theft, other unethical things, etc...

CT: That is a great point. I haven't proven it - and I can't because you can't prove a lie. A universal moral is only an ideal or goal to live by. Everyone of us violate laws every day, publically or privately. Christians call that SIN. I believe in it, and therefore when I violate it I am burdened by my own sin. If you don't believe in it, you are free to once again, do as you jolly well please.

There is nothing keeping you from violating your own moral code, or any need for guilt because if you change it as you go along, no one else will care.

 

[busmaster11]

I couldn't resist the opportunity to jump in here.

Your reference to "liberties you take in the dark," are you referring to masturbation? Or to oral sex? Or sex out of wedlock? Or just plain old sex for pleasure while using contraception? Are these the most damning "immoral" acts you can imagine?

Why don't you inform us by just what process a believer-in-God determines what's moral and what's not, and how that process is different from what a non-believer follows?

Just wanted to add here, that my theoretical process for determining what my moral beliefs are is to attempt to reconcile my own natural beliefs with what critical Bible study teaches me, with the latter winning out and shaping my world view. In practice, I suspect my natural beliefs tend to be pretty difficult to change, though there's generally no reconciling needed. The hard part by far, is actually following them...

 

[Howard]

You've truly embodied the wisdom of the age in that statement with your mockery.

You DO do anything you jolly well please. Held back only by a personal, arbitrary and imaginary set of morals to gain the esteem of your peers. Ask yourself what liberties you take in the dark, free from the judging eyes of your family and peers, and you'll see what I mean.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong and that I don't know you.

OK. You're wrong and you don't know me.

 

[busmaster11]

I did mention, I think, that if you love you are a prisoner, no? In order to love you have to love yourself because all hate is hate of the self. In order to love yourself you have to be worth in your own eyes. For this reason I am a prisoner. I can't do what would cause me to lose my own self respect because by my self respect I own the universe. There is nothing I can have other than my moral values because they are worth a million times what anything else is worth. I am totally selfish and would never give up my self respect for shit. My self is always aware of everything I do and I can never hide. I can't be anything if I am not conscious of who I am.

I lost my faith long ago and found what real faith is based on, self love, the trust that I and the universe are one. If you lose your faith you will fall into a deep pit, the same one I crawled out of. I wish you luck believing that the real good is somewhere out there but if you ever fail at that, there is another truth that is possible beyond where one surrenders all hope. Good luck to you either way.

Hey Moonbeam. I didn't catch your post on that so sorry if I'm commenting on an incorrect picture. I think I follow your chain of logic, and if you had once been a Christian as you allude to perhaps you'll see where I break from you.

My reasoning begins, not surprisingly, with God. If there is a Creator, He is infinitely wiser and superior to me in all respects. Since he would not create an inferior being for its own sake, casting him into creation where he would have no hope of surviving autonomously as he is by definition, a creation and not the creator, rather he is created for a purpose greater then himself. This is where I think Christianity runs head-on with the entitlement-oriented self-focused independence-based doctrine in America.

So so far I agree we have to love ourselves. Yours seem to be based on self respect or pride or the value that your conscience has. Mine is based on the greater purpose God has for me, written in the Bible. If I am created, then I belong to the Creator. My worth is attributed to me by someone whom unlike me, will never die, and can save me and exalt me to service in the kingdom of heaven.

I think to say if you love you are a prisoner is a bit too fatalistic for me. I think I see the concept but my opposing view is that not to love is to deny the primary faculties that make us superior to all the animals. To me self-love is about about self preservation, whether in animals or in man. To lay our lives down for one another as Christ did and calls us to do, brings us deeper to the meaning of being human. It gives us purpose beyond the boundaries of our own skin. Without that purpose, that's when we are prisoners to our own nihilistic perversions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

CT: That is a great point. I haven't proven it - and I can't because you can't prove a lie. A universal moral is only an ideal or goal to live by. Everyone of us violate laws every day, publically or privately. Christians call that SIN. I believe in it, and therefore when I violate it I am burdened by my own sin. If you don't believe in it, you are free to once again, do as you jolly well please.

No, what you are failing to demonstrate is that any burden you think you bear is inconsistent with doing as you "jolly well please" -- which itself is simply a pejorative way of saying "of your own free will." You haven't demonstrated that your feelings of burden are not endemic. You believe you sin because you choose to believe it, doing quite as you "jolly well please."

There is nothing keeping you from violating your own moral code

The only things keeping you from violating your own moral code are imaginary. How is that any different?

...or any need for guilt because if you change it as you go along, no one else will care.

So? So what? You argument seems to be "It would suck if X were true, therefore X is false."

 

[Moonbeam]

busmaster11: Hey Moonbeam. I didn't catch your post on that so sorry if I'm commenting on an incorrect picture. I think I follow your chain of logic, and if you had once been a Christian as you allude to perhaps you'll see where I break from you.

M: I think I do.

b: My reasoning begins, not surprisingly, with God. If there is a Creator, He is infinitely wiser and superior to me in all respects. Since he would not create an inferior being for its own sake, casting him into creation where he would have no hope of surviving autonomously as he is by definition, a creation and not the creator, rather he is created for a purpose greater then himself.

M: I was not able to believe or prove there is such a Creator. I couldn't rationalize away a god who would allow such misery to befall children. But I mentioned that it is much easier for most, I think, to believe in a perfect God then that perfection could lie in the self.

b: This is where I think Christianity runs head-on with the entitlement-oriented self-focused independence-based doctrine in America.

M: I don't know what this means other than that the ego is self hate, the false face we create to pretend we are not in pain. It is the self of separation, the lonely sad one we become when our being is divided by duality.

b: So so far I agree we have to love ourselves. Yours seem to be based on self respect or pride or the value that your conscience has. Mine is based on the greater purpose God has for me, written in the Bible. If I am created, then I belong to the Creator. My worth is attributed to me by someone whom unlike me, will never die, and can save me and exalt me to service in the kingdom of heaven.

M: Yes, I know. The problem is that almost nobody knows they have a real self that isn't the ego, a self that was always perfect, a self that can finally be seen when the ego false self dies. It is the self that always is and always has been and always will be. It is the self that awakens in the now. This is the self that is not other than the Beloved. When I lost my faith in God I lost everything that can be taken, everything I valued, everything that was precious to me, but by the lose of all that I was left with only what can't be taken, what I really am. All that love I wanted from God was there inside of me, buried like a jewel in trash.

b: I think to say if you love you are a prisoner is a bit too fatalistic for me. I think I see the concept but my opposing view is that not to love is to deny the primary faculties that make us superior to all the animals.

M: I lost all such beliefs. I am not superior to anything. There is only perfection in all things.

b: To me self-love is about about self preservation, whether in animals or in man.

M: You know what it is to have an ego. I do too.

b: To lay our lives down for one another as Christ did and calls us to do, brings us deeper to the meaning of being human. It gives us purpose beyond the boundaries of our own skin. Without that purpose, that's when we are prisoners to our own nihilistic perversions.

M: I believe that Jesus went up on the cross and died so you in faith would die to the notion of your own sin, that you would feel, not just think, you are forgiven. What purpose does one have who has no self. What perversions can there be. We have all been forgiven because there has always been, is not, and will only ever be nothing but Love. He who dies in Love enters the Kingdom of Heaven, not later but NOW, where heaven has always been. You were born in the Garden of Eden and it has always been your home. The snake is the knowledge of language that created the thought that you are separate. Thinking is self division and Love is Unity.

 

[busmaster11]

No, what you are failing to demonstrate is that any burden you think you bear is inconsistent with doing as you "jolly well please" -- which itself is simply a pejorative way of saying "of your own free will." You haven't demonstrated that your feelings of burden are not endemic. You believe you sin because you choose to believe it, doing quite as you "jolly well please."

The only things keeping you from violating your own moral code are imaginary. How is that any different?

So? So what? You argument seems to be "It would suck if X were true, therefore X is false."

CT - I see your point. To which my only response is that the Bible claims itself to be the Word of God, and therefore its commandments are the moral laws we need to live by. As is without saying, you can chose to accept or deny its claims. I aim for no persuasion with my words... ...Except perhaps, that you might see my point that it "would suck" if there were no moral absolutes.

BTW - only if you feel this is a relevant point as I do - I fail to find any contradictory view to what I said about nietzsche claiming the 20th century to be the bloodiest, doing a simple search on "nietzsche the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history"... Though each hit on the first page seems to if anything, affirm it... Can you show me a link that contradicts that claim?

 

[busmaster11]

BTW - only if you feel this is a relevant point as I do - I fail to find any contradictory view to what I said about nietzsche claiming the 20th century to be the bloodiest, doing a simple search on "nietzsche the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history"... Though each hit on the first page seems to if anything, affirm it... Can you show me a link that contradicts that claim?

Reference 8 on the bottom of this page has a reference to the quote, noted in the passage. http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/thedeathoftruth.htm

 

[sandorski]

Reference 8 on the bottom of this page has a reference to the quote, noted in the passage. http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/thedeathoftruth.htm

What's the point?

 

[busmaster11]

What's the point?

I shoulda PM'd that. CT was disputing what I said about Neitchze saying that the 20th century would be the bloodiest century in history having man expelling the notion of God and God's moral absolutes...

 

[sandorski]

I shoulda PM'd that. CT was disputing what I said about Neitchze saying that the 20th century would be the bloodiest century in history having man expelling the notion of God and God's moral absolutes...

Can you prove this? What exactly are "God's Moral Absolutes"? Genocide perhaps?

 

[busmaster11]

Can you prove this? What exactly are "God's Moral Absolutes"? Genocide perhaps?

I can't prove there are moral absolutes, but when we talk about them we are implicitly talking about whether there is a God.

I can't prove there's a God, because I'm not sovereign over God - if I was, God wouldn't be God.

But, if you can think of a test which will convince you of the existence of either the moral absolute or God, I guarantee I'll have you believing in one post! Hold your cynicism on that one till you name me the test though. This offer's open to everyone.

Lastly, if you know your history of the 20th century, you would not make the statement of "genocide" when it comes to God's moral absolutes, not the Christian God at least. Very ironic that you would suggest this in light of the comment about Neitchze.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

CT - I see your point. To which my only response is that the Bible claims itself to be the Word of God...

Lots of texts have purported to be the word of some god.

... and therefore its commandments are the moral laws we need to live by.

There may be laws by which we are to abide, but whether or not they are moral or immoral is for each to decide for himself. To put it another way, God may arbitrarily decide his own criteria for metering out rewards and punishments, but he cannot decide how I feel about the fairness of his decisions and/or methods.

As is without saying, you can chose to accept or deny its claims. I aim for no persuasion with my words...

I do not find cause to believe that it's claims are true, no.

...Except perhaps, that you might see my point that it "would suck" if there were no moral absolutes.

There are all kinds of moral absolutes. For example, I believe that it is always wrong for a person to torture another living being for pleasure. Always. Without exception. Absolutely.

This moral belief of mine is not objectively true, however.

BTW - only if you feel this is a relevant point as I do - I fail to find any contradictory view to what I said about nietzsche claiming the 20th century to be the bloodiest, doing a simple search on "nietzsche the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history"... Though each hit on the first page seems to if anything, affirm it... Can you show me a link that contradicts that claim?

For reference to your claim you linked to an obscure internet article written by some person, within which the author references a book written by another person,within which the second author presumably says something about Nietzsche which you think validates your claims.

Forgive me if I don't find that very convincing.

 

[Howard]

I can't prove there are moral absolutes, but when we talk about them we are implicitly talking about whether there is a God.

Please explain.

I can't prove there's a God, because I'm not sovereign over God - if I was, God wouldn't be God.

Again, your reasoning does not reveal itself to me. One does not need to be sovereign over something in order to prove its existence.

Lastly, if you know your history of the 20th century, you would not make the statement of "genocide" when it comes to God's moral absolutes, not the Christian God at least. Very ironic that you would suggest this in light of the comment about Neitchze.

Why restrict yourself to the 20th century? Also, this line of thought will lead nowhere as I predict you will say that man does not always fully understand God's moral absolutes if you are given an example that shows that man has committed genocide in accordance with God's teachings (or what they believe to be God's teachings).

By the way, you're supposed to prove that I'm a morally bankrupt, craven weasel of a man who won't hesitate to do evil if I think I can get away with it. Do tell.

EDIT: clarified ambiguity in wording

 

[sandorski]

I can't prove there are moral absolutes, but when we talk about them we are implicitly talking about whether there is a God.

I can't prove there's a God, because I'm not sovereign over God - if I was, God wouldn't be God.

But, if you can think of a test which will convince you of the existence of either the moral absolute or God, I guarantee I'll have you believing in one post! Hold your cynicism on that one till you name me the test though. This offer's open to everyone.

Lastly, if you know your history of the 20th century, you would not make the statement of "genocide" when it comes to God's moral absolutes, not the Christian God at least. Very ironic that you would suggest this in light of the comment about Neitchze.

Come on man, you're smarter than this.