Sign in to follow this  
DoctorIssachar

Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

 

I read the Book.  Let us count the ways.  Genocide  is not good.  Neither is slavery.  Or Homophobia.  Or Women as property.  Or Sadism.  Or blood lust.

 

:whist:

As an atheist by what objective moral standard do you determine those to be “bad” things?

 

So I’m assuming you are unwilling to engage in the thought experiment. 

 

By what objective moral standard do you as an Atheist obtain and maintain the characterization of monster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Stormbringer said:

As an atheist by what objective moral standard do you determine those to be “bad” things?

 

So I’m assuming you are unwilling to engage in the thought experiment. 

 

By what objective moral standard do you as an Atheist obtain and maintain the characterization of monster?

 

 

By what moral standard is God good?  Aside from the fact that Scripture says that God is good.  As to the objective part -- all Scripture was created by people.  Like it or not -- objectivity has cultural deficits.  The people who created these Scriptures, projected their moral deficits onto their God.

 

My morals are better than God's.  I at least know that slavery is wrong -- and that women and gay people are fully Human.  I also know that rape is not a property crime, against a woman's father.

 

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
 
 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

By what moral standard is God good?  Aside from the fact that Scripture says that God is good.  As to the objective part -- all Scripture was created by people.  Like it or not -- objectivity has cultural deficits.  The people who created these Scriptures, projected their moral deficits onto their God.

 

My morals are better than God's.  I at least know that slavery is wrong -- and that women and gay people are fully Human.  I also know that rape is not a property crime, against a woman's father.

 

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
 
 

 

 

By what objective moral standard as an atheist do you call those things wrong or judge yourself to hold “better morals?”

Edited by Stormbringer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stormbringer said:

By what objective moral standard as an atheist do you call those things wrong or judge yourself to hold “better morals?”

 

 

What are you looking for?  What do you want me to say?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Discourse

 

 

Well?  Despite what you seem to think, I have done my best to answer your questions.  I don't know what you want.

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

As an atheist by what objective moral standard do you determine those to be “bad” things?

 

So I’m assuming you are unwilling to engage in the thought experiment. 

 

By what objective moral standard do you as an Atheist obtain and maintain the characterization of monster?

Are you saying because someone doesn't believe in God, they shouldn't know right from wrong, or good from bad? That seems to be what your implying with your repetitious query.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

By what objective moral standard as an atheist do you call those things wrong or judge yourself to hold “better morals?”

 

I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

 

 

 

 

 

It would be difficult, to find a group whose motto is "harm, evil and destruction".  If such a claim were made, I would expect it to be propaganda.  

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Well?  Despite what you seem to think, I have done my best to answer your questions.  I don't know what you want.

 

 

Have you stated what objective moral standard you abide by as an atheist and use to make your moral statements?

I've simply restated questions you have failed to directly address. I didn't mean to upset you. If I did I apologize. I am just wondering from an atheistic viewpoint how do they justify morality being anything but subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Key said:

Are you saying because someone doesn't believe in God, they shouldn't know right from wrong, or good from bad? That seems to be what your implying with your repetitious query.

It can certainly appear that way so I should probably write some sort of disclaimer. I forget how sensitive people are nowadays. I am not in any way saying an atheist can't be moral or have a good moral code. I am not saying they cannot conduct themselves in a moral fashion. Personally I believe we all have a basic morality written on our hearts. But I also believe in the existence of an objective moral standard. Atheists are usually good people with good intentions. You won't hear me say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

 

 

I would argue the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Stormbringer said:

Pickle

Are you calling me a pickle, referencing that i am sour, attempting to bait me, pointing out i may be taking it too seriously, or something i havent listed?  I ask for clarification.

 

To the question, i dont know if morality is subjective or objective and from my perspective i havent enough information to answer that accurately.  However, given human ability and disposition to be irrational, i believe our stance toward morality to be subjective.  Hence, the view of god as a monster is a subjective supposition placed on the character of an imaginary being(in my belief).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stormbringer said:

Have you stated what objective moral standard you abide by as an atheist and use to make your moral statements?

I've simply restated questions you have failed to directly address. I didn't mean to upset you. If I did I apologize. I am just wondering from an atheistic viewpoint how do they justify morality being anything but subjective.

 

 

I suspect I'm going to regret asking.  What do you mean by "objective moral standard"?

 

You must know that I am not under Scripture.  If this is where you're going; you're wasting both our times with a futile argument.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

It would be difficult, to find a group whose motto is "harm, evil and destruction".  If such a claim were made, I would expect it to be propaganda. 

 

 

Hitler trying to eradicate the Jews was an evil attempt at genocide, the rest of the world trying to eliminate the Nazi's was a good attempt at genocide.

 

6 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

I would argue the opposite. 

 

To me, a person who believes in God would have their moral standards subjected to what their God teaches them is right and wrong, while an non-believer would be more objective because their morals aren't attached to any particular system of belief. If you believe in nothing, your morals are derived from your own logic and standards, they are formulated in one's own conscience and not subject to outside influences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 10:30 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Its inaccurate historical propaganda.. No, Constantine, a fourth century emperor, wasn't born soon enough to have any impact on the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament was written during the first century. The Council of Nicea didn't create or construct a New Testament, but reaffirmed the books that for centuries had already been acknowledged as authoritative by Christians.

 

And again you choose to misrepresent historic facts; yes, the books themselves might have been written before the council, but at the council it was determined which books were to be included (and which excluded) in (from) the New Testament. These choices were arbitrary and included a lot of books that were written a long time after the facts and excluded books that were actually written at the time the facts happened. The political choices that were made are clear and well documented (like - for instance - the diminishing of the significance of women, the sanctification of Jesus et cetera).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 10:00 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Hitler trying to eradicate the Jews was an evil attempt at genocide, the rest of the world trying to eliminate the Nazi's was a good attempt at genocide. [...]

 

I - personally - would say any form of genocide is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this