Originally posted by psmith81992
Because I'm sure if God existed, you'd know factually there is something all powerful around you and that if he does something or wants something, it is for a reason.
I don't think immoral behaviour lacks reason though. Just morality. So if he wants me to do something, he may have a reason, but I may still view it as unjust.
Originally posted by Surtur
Animals aren't thinking intelligent beings the way humans are. Especially the ones we tend to eat. So we can just scratch that right off.
That's a cop out and you know it. If you define morals exclusively about how humans behave, then obviously human morals will seem like a decent standard for you. The question from the thread is rigged.
Originally posted by Surtur
I also never said we were morally superior. See, a person would be saying they are morally superior if they said "I'm just on a higher level, your morals don't apply to me". It is not moral superiority in a topic about God to bring up the common defenses of his actions. When I go out and specifically create topics just to bash "God" then maybe we can talk about me acting morally superior, but it makes no sense to suggest that merely because I'm bringing up the oh so often used defenses brought up whenever these *multiple* atrocities are mentioned.
Our morality only makes sense because of our physical limitations, our relationship with death and our interactivity with each other. Morals don't exist in a timeless vacuum and certainly don't make much sense to an entity such as God.
I did not read the question of the thread as "let's assume God is human" and then "let's expect that human to be beyond humanity", because that claim would make no sense.
Originally posted by Bardock42
While I agree, there's no inherent morality in regards to theism either though...
Originally posted by psmith81992
Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that, meanwhile reading this:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7374
"Corbett completely misunderstands that the debate concerns the ontology of moral values – what philosophers call the “sources of normativity.” Instead Corbett thinks the debate is about why we do things that we believe to be moral, even though McDowell clearly explained the difference in his opening speech, and throughout his rebuttals. Argh!"
It's interesting, because the actual topic of debate "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? " could be interpreted either way, the author seems to be set on his (and the theistic debaters) interpretation.
At any rate, I agree with the author, both with his point that objective morals can be argued just as well without a God, as well as that the existence of a God does not sufficiently prove objective morals.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure how objective morals can be argued without a god. I spent post after post asking Ush for an example of an objective moral and still have yet to get one.
Well, i think he gave some as far as he can go. As someone who doesn't believe that objective morals exist, I don't think he can ever actually give a sufficient one, but neither can you, imo...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, i think he gave some as far as he can go. As someone who doesn't believe that objective morals exist, I don't think he can ever actually give a sufficient one, but neither can you, imo...
The ten commandments are considered "objective", and each commandment has tens of thousands of cases to rectify "what if" scenarios.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The ten commandments are considered "objective", and each commandment has tens of thousands of cases to rectify "what if" scenarios.
Yeah, and most atheist moral objectivists will say that something like "do not kill" (again with the thousands of what if scenarios) is an objective rule.
To me both the claim it is a natural objective law and a god's law hold the same merit.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and most atheist moral objectivists will say that something like "do not kill" (again with the thousands of what if scenarios) is an objective rule.To me both the claim it is a natural objective law and a god's law hold the same merit.
It's do not murder, not do not kill. And that's clearly not an objective rule. I'm not arguing in favor of moral relativism in the absence of theism but you couldn't get an atheist to argue in terms of something "objective". Was hitler objectively evil? Was Stalin, Pot, Mao, etc?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not in my opinion, but definitely in many other atheists who subscribe to objective morality.
But that's the problem, without a higher being passing down the laws, there can't be objective morality as far as I understand. Some atheists might subscribe to the idea but there were many hitler/stalin supporters, dilluting the idea of objectivity. I personally believe that it's possible to have objectivity without a higher being, but mainly because I think the concept of moral relativism is stupid.
Or let me put it to you this way. Without a higher being, I don't believe in objective morals on a macro level, only when you take things on a case by case basis do I believe any kind of objectivity can exist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And the way I see it there can't be objective morality with a higher being passing down laws either.There were lots of christian supporting Hitler and Stalin as well, there being an objective morality wouldn't mean that anyone follows it.
But those supporting Hitler and Stalin would support them under what guise of religious law? It simply means they are wrong.
Originally posted by psmith81992
But those supporting Hitler and Stalin would support them under what guise of religious law? It simply means they are wrong.
The same can be said of them being wrong about the categorical imperative. About utilitarianism. About literally any philosophical and non-theistic moral stance in history...
Originally posted by Bardock42
The same can be said of them being wrong about the categorical imperative. About utilitarianism. About literally any philosophical and non-theistic moral stance in history...
I don't get it, on one side you have an omnipotent being telling you what is wrong and right, on the other side you have people not agreeing on anything objectively. How are those two things identical?
Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't get it, on one side you have an omnipotent being telling you what is wrong and right, on the other side you have people not agreeing on anything objectively. How are those two things identical?
I can just phrase that the other way around.
On the one side you have people not agreeing on what some God said on the other you have natural moral laws in the fabric of existence....
If you truly believe that there are natural moral laws that apply objectively to everyone that's really just the same as believing an omnipotent God made laws.
The problem is this topic is about morality, thus we can only judge it by the morality we know. In which God is a mass murderer, a manipulator, and a whole bunch of other stuff. So the topic itself is flawed, we can only judge morality as WE know it. So it makes no sense to go the route of "dude is above morality because power". At least it makes no sense in a topic trying to talk about morality.
I also have more or less the same view as Bardock. Power doesn't mean shit to me, I don't care how powerful someone is, it doesn't put them above anything. If you act like a dick you are a dick, no matter if you are all powerful or not. You don't get to cop out shitty behavior with "I can create a universe so shit don't apply to me". A spade is a spade, no matter *what* they can do.
You also flat out don't get to give rules to other people and say "doesn't apply to me because power". Practice what you preach or don't F'ing preach.
Except god isn't going to be on our level if hes all knowing and perfect. Logic dictates that unless he tells you a why, explicitly or implicitly, you won't understand it. Calling god names because he and his reasons exist beyond us, makes you look childish. So is saying "practice what you preach" because thats some human construct. Ive had every "why" answered and even now I'm not a 100% believer but I have a lot more comfidence in that than human agenda.