Morals Not From God

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914801' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:04 PM']Ever heard of a white lie?[/quote]
a white lie is still a lie. yes we all use it to avoid hurting others feelings or whatever reason. but if the white lie backfires and the person that you told it to questions you about why you told them the white lie then you have to com clean with your reason for it and hope they dont get upset or tell another lie to cover up why you told them the white lie in the first place. and yes i have seen people get upset because of a white lie that was told to them after they realized they were lied to and then even more ticked after hearing the reason for the white lie. so white lie is covered by the example.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1914819' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:16 PM']a white lie is still a lie. yes we all use it to avoid hurting others feelings or whatever reason. but if the white lie backfires and the person that you told it to questions you about why you told them the white lie then you have to com clean with your reason for it and hope they dont get upset or tell another lie to cover up why you told them the white lie in the first place. and yes i have seen people get upset because of a white lie that was told to them after they realized they were lied to and then even more ticked after hearing the reason for the white lie. so white lie is covered by the example.[/quote]

I think there are plenty of instances of when lying is permissable. For example, if someone inviaded your home and demanded to know where the secret safe is, telling them there is no secret safe wouldn't be immoral. Or if the same person made you promise you wouldn't tell the police if they let you go, and you did, that wouldn't be immoral - because you would have a greater responsiblity to tell the police and warn/protect society. Lying, deception and manipulation can also be effective in interrogation situations which can be used to extract the truth and put dangerous criminals behind bars. White lies are ok, so long they are done tactfully. For example, if a fat girl asked you if she were fat, you could say something like she is just big boned, or some other evasive half truth because the only thing worse than lying to her is telling her the truth. Of course, there is the chance it could backfire, but more often than not the truth backfires also.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kafka' post='1914438' date='Jul 8 2009, 03:27 PM']notice how I tactfully used 'Nazis' instead of 'Hitler' in my above post.

[/quote]
Hitler was a Nazi?

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']I think there are plenty of instances of when lying is permissable. For example, if someone inviaded your home and demanded to know where the secret safe is, telling them there is no secret safe wouldn't be immoral.[/quote]

i think you are thinking that i believe that because lying is an objective wrong that im saying that there is never a situation like the one here where telling a lie isnt going to be benaficial to your survival/better being. there are different levels of evil/wrong. sometimes you are stuck in a situation where your options each include some level of wrong action, you then have to choose which is going to be the lesser evil and go with it.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']Or if the same person made you promise you wouldn't tell the police if they let you go, and you did, that wouldn't be immoral - because you would have a greater responsiblity to tell the police and warn/protect society.[/quote]

again see above.
on the whole lesser evil another example is you borrow your friends gun to go hunting and he wants it back so that he can go kill someone with it. you know his intention for wanting it back. if you dont give it back its stealing because you are keeping something that is not lawfully yours but if you give it back you are responsible for giving him the murder weapon. you have to decide between technically stealing his gun, or allowing him to go kill someone with it. keeping the gun is the lesser evil. in the same way telling a lie to a robber is a lesser evil than letting him get away.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914843' date='Jul 8 2009, 08:33 PM']Lying, deception and manipulation can also be effective in interrogation situations which can be used to extract the truth and put dangerous criminals behind bars. White lies are ok, so long they are done tactfully. For example, if a fat girl asked you if she were fat, you could say something like she is just big boned, or some other evasive half truth because the only thing worse than lying to her is telling her the truth. Of course, there is the chance it could backfire, but more often than not the truth backfires also.[/quote]

so yes to lie can be useful and even have a less bad outcome than telling the truth, but because to universalize lying as a good would defeat it self you can say to lie is an objective bad even though at times to tell a lie might be your best option.

but to wrap this up i did state that the lie analogy wasn't perfect and that it was to just get the general point across (if i didn't before i meant to so i know i have now) i hope that made sense. if not ask me what i meant. i really rather not debate as to the objectiveness of something though.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914094' date='Jul 7 2009, 11:34 PM']A murdering rapist could say "oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of god, beaver dam god". I'm not really following you here. People always have a choice, if you choose evil, you choose the consquences (hell or jail). Nobody is forced to agree with rules and laws of society, but if you don't like it stiff bickies.[/quote]

With God morals are objective, without God morals are subjective and mere opinion.

Evil? You're denial of God, denies evil. In your mindset, just as God would be make believe, your morals, ideas of good and evil are also in a very similar way make believe.

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914899' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:25 PM']With God morals are objective, without God morals are subjective and mere opinion.

Evil? You're denial of God, denies evil. In your mindset, just as God would be make believe, your morals, ideas of good and evil are also in a very similar way make believe.[/quote]

Morals don't even appear to be objective even with god. In the bible there are plenty of examples of genocide, rape and murder all in gods name and apparently good and wholesome. Any act of evil of can be justified by invoking gods name, like terrorism. Don't trust it.

The definition of evil is 'that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune' and obviously there is plenty of that so evil exists just not the kind of mystical devil inspired evil people think of.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1914876' date='Jul 8 2009, 09:09 PM']i think you are thinking that i believe that because lying is an objective wrong that im saying that there is never a situation like the one here where telling a lie isnt going to be benaficial to your survival/better being. there are different levels of evil/wrong. sometimes you are stuck in a situation where your options each include some level of wrong action, you then have to choose which is going to be the lesser evil and go with it.[/quote]

Catholics don't believe in concept of "lesser evil" as it implies moral relativism. In Catholicsm lying is always wrong and sinful even if it's done to protect yourself and your family.

[quote]again see above.
on the whole lesser evil another example is you borrow your friends gun to go hunting and he wants it back so that he can go kill someone with it. you know his intention for wanting it back. if you dont give it back its stealing because you are keeping something that is not lawfully yours but if you give it back you are responsible for giving him the murder weapon. you have to decide between technically stealing his gun, or allowing him to go kill someone with it. keeping the gun is the lesser evil. in the same way telling a lie to a robber is a lesser evil than letting him get away.[/quote]

Again this is moral relativism. Stealing is always wrong, there are no exceptions. The person must always choose the non sinful action and let god handle the rest. I think this situation a good argument could be made for handing the gun into and informing the police, you're not stealing with weapon as the owner has forfeited his right to own one if he intends to use it for harm. Giving him back the gun would be assisting him with his sin and that would be sinful.

[quote]so yes to lie can be useful and even have a less bad outcome than telling the truth, but because to universalize lying as a good would defeat it self you can say to lie is an objective bad even though at times to tell a lie might be your best option.[/quote]

But then you're not saying a lie is an objective bad. You're saying it's a conditional bad, but sometimes it's ok, which is moral subjectivism and relativism. Saying a lie is usually bad is not the same as saying it is objectively bad, because when you say it's an objective bad you're saying it's immutable and there's nothing we can do to change it.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']Catholics don't believe in concept of "lesser evil" as it implies moral relativism. In Catholicsm lying is always wrong and sinful even if it's done to protect yourself and your family.[/quote]

not true. we hold that there are two levels of sin venial and mortal. then within the venial sins some are graver than others.

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']Again this is moral relativism. Stealing is always wrong, there are no exceptions. The person must always choose the non sinful action and let god handle the rest. I think this situation a good argument could be made for handing the gun into and informing the police, you're not stealing with weapon as the owner has forfeited his right to own one if he intends to use it for harm. Giving him back the gun would be assisting him with his sin and that would be sinful.[/quote]

so you rather give the gun back and then call the police in hope that they can prevent him from killing in time rather than keep hold of it and prevent it yourself?

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915421' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:18 AM']But then you're not saying a lie is an objective bad. You're saying it's a conditional bad, but sometimes it's ok, which is moral subjectivism and relativism. Saying a lie is usually bad is not the same as saying it is objectively bad, because when you say it's an objective bad you're saying it's immutable and there's nothing we can do to change it.[/quote]

no that is not what i am saying. something can be an objective bad and avoided as much as possible but have a time where it is your best option. for instance during ww2 people that housed the Jews broke their moral obligation to follow the law and lied to the Nazis. To follow the law though would mean assisting in the killing of innocent lives. you are more morally obligated to protect the lives of the innocent and put yourself at risk than to follow a law saying that you need to turn them in.

i know that there is nothing that i or anyone else is going to be able to say on this subject, or on any other, to convince you of any view point other than what you already hold. so im done. may God bless you and guide you.

[bonkers]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1915459' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:49 AM']not true. we hold that there are two levels of sin venial and mortal. then within the venial sins some are graver than others.[/quote]

Catholics do not hold that venial sins should be committed over mortal sins. Evil must be avoided altogether. If you have to choose evil, the devil has won.

[quote]so you rather give the gun back and then call the police in hope that they can prevent him from killing in time rather than keep hold of it and prevent it yourself?[/quote]

I'd give the gun to police and let them deal with it.

[quote]no that is not what i am saying. something can be an objective bad and avoided as much as possible but have a time where it is your best option. for instance during ww2 people that housed the Jews broke their moral obligation to follow the law and lied to the Nazis. To follow the law though would mean assisting in the killing of innocent lives. you are more morally obligated to protect the lives of the innocent and put yourself at risk than to follow a law saying that you need to turn them in.[/quote]

Lying to the Nazi's is still a sin. Lying is a sin period, it's never justified. When you say that sometimes lying is OK, that's moral relativism and the church strictly forbids that.

[quote]i know that there is nothing that i or anyone else is going to be able to say on this subject, or on any other, to convince you of any view point other than what you already hold. so im done. may God bless you and guide you.[/quote]

may Allah do the same to you.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915416' date='Jul 9 2009, 07:54 AM']Morals don't even appear to be objective even with god. In the bible there are plenty of examples of genocide, rape and murder all in gods name and apparently good and wholesome. Any act of evil of can be justified by invoking gods name, like terrorism. Don't trust it.

The definition of evil is 'that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune' and obviously there is plenty of that so evil exists just not the kind of mystical devil inspired evil people think of.[/quote]

Your still using words that by your theology are make believe. Your definition is your subjective opinion. You want to reject the Christian God, but hold on to Christian Morality, like many atheist today who are not true to their beliefs.

Like many atheist you ask a very good question or dance around it anyway. If God exist why does He allow evil? Well if there is no God there is no evil you must come to grasp with this part of your theology if you are to be a true atheist.

As for the answer to your question, one can not vandalize their own property. This is how God does not murder. Also the people that God destroyed or had destroyed where the wicked.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916177' date='Jul 9 2009, 08:40 PM']Your still using words that by your theology are make believe. Your definition is your subjective opinion. You want to reject the Christian God, but hold on to Christian Morality, like many atheist today who are not true to their beliefs.[/quote]


There are some positive aspects of Christians morals which may well lead to a more peaceful world if followed. There are also negative aspects of Christian ethics. I think obviously Bonkers is not trying to hold on too all of Christian morality, that is quite obvious, but does wish to retain what he believes to be the socially beneficial aspects of it. I don't know if this will work but let's be clear that your claim is only partly true.

[quote]Like many atheist you ask a very good question or dance around it anyway. If God exist why does He allow evil? Well if there is no God there is no evil you must come to grasp with this part of your theology if you are to be a true atheist.[/quote]

That's just semantics.

Taking the Christians metaphysical assertions into account and examining the state of the world we find a number of facts which seem incompatible with the assertion that the world is under the watchful eye of a benevolent all powerful being.

That is essentially the claim. I don't think it's a particularly good argument but your objection is just a matter of semantics.

[quote]As for the answer to your question, one can not vandalize their own property. This is how God does not murder. Also the people that God destroyed or had destroyed where the wicked.[/quote]

Yeah, those Canaanite children were some really bad dudes. The livestock as well.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1916327' date='Jul 9 2009, 11:40 PM']There are some positive aspects of Christians morals which may well lead to a more peaceful world if followed. There are also negative aspects of Christian ethics. I think obviously Bonkers is not trying to hold on too all of Christian morality, that is quite obvious, but does wish to retain what he believes to be the socially beneficial aspects of it. I don't know if this will work but let's be clear that your claim is only partly true.[/quote]

It is completely true, the problem is that atheists and their sympathizers don't like it. True Atheistic Theology places such understandings such as Good and Evil in the land of make believe. Evils such as murder would be nothing more than one animal terminating the biological functions of another animal.

Without God there is no good or evil, right or wrong, true atheists, that is atheists that fully embrace atheistic theology understand this realization. "Atheist" such as Bonkers want to play both sides and cherry pick Christian Morality when it suites them but reject the God which is the foundation of that morality.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1916327' date='Jul 9 2009, 11:40 PM']Yeah, those Canaanite children were some really bad dudes. The livestock as well.[/quote]

God is the author of life. One can not vandalize ones own property. The twist is without the existence of God, the deaths of these children or anyone is neither good or bad.

Edited July 10, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916361' date='Jul 10 2009, 12:07 AM']It is completely true, the problem is that atheists and their sympathizers don't like it. True Atheistic Theology places such understandings such as Good and Evil in the land of make believe. Evils such as murder would be nothing more than one animal terminating the biological functions of another animal.[/quote]


At one point you claim this is true, but atheists don't like it, later you claim true atheists in fact do full embrace an amoral universe. You can't make that sort of general claim and expect it to be true. Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Chomsky et cetera and other major atheistic thinkers would certainly not fall under your generalizations.

[quote]Without God there is no good or evil, right or wrong, true atheist, that is atheist that fully embrace atheistic theology understand this realization. "Atheist" such as Bonkers want to play both sides and cherry pick Christian Morality when it suites them but reject the God which is the foundation of that morality.[/quote]





[quote]God is the author of life. One can not vandalize ones own property. The twist is without the existence of God, the deaths of these children or anyone is neither good or bad.[/quote]

It may not be bad in the ultimate sense you are talking about. It is certainly savage and utterly contrary to what most people would ascribe to a ultimately good being. If Melisovic publically gave the orders ascribed to your God he war crimes trial would have been over in a day and we'd call him a monster. You yourself don't seem to deny the orders are contrary to any sense of proportional justice or simple decency, you simply try to play a tautology. And to a degree your tautology is justified. If You're God exists and he is morally perfect then for any action 'x' 'x' is morally justified. If you define morality with your God's will then by definition everything he orders is moral. But is speaking to someone outside your religious universe this not going to go far. Most people looking at the apparent morally depraved actions ordered by Yahwah in certian parts of the OT would be unable to assent that they are morally unassailable and won't cede the requisite antecedent. Which is why I feel this is a useless argument for atheists and Christians to argue over. You all are working on two very different moral planes.

Now the death of children can be bad in a godless universe, just not in the sense of a violation of a transcendent moral law. It is subjective, but so is your moral law. You simply move the subjectivity one step back.

[KnightofChrist]

My phatmass time for today has come to a end. I will get back to you tomorrow.
The fact remains without the existence of God, good and evil, right and wrong do not truly exist.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1915490' date='Jul 9 2009, 10:30 AM']may Allah do the same to you.[/quote]

thank you

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916395' date='Jul 10 2009, 01:34 AM']My phatmass time for today has come to a end. I will get back to you tomorrow.
The fact remains without the existence of God, good and evil, right and wrong do not truly exist.[/quote]

are you saying that something can only be good because God loves it? i believe that the proper view is that God loves things because they are good.

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916177' date='Jul 9 2009, 07:40 PM']Your still using words that by your theology are make believe. Your definition is your subjective opinion. You want to reject the Christian God, but hold on to Christian Morality, like many atheist today who are not true to their beliefs.[/quote]

Why Christian morality and not Buddhist or Hindu morality? What makes you think you have a monopoly on words like good, evil and morality? All these things have existed in all cultures well before the invention of Christianity. It's not like they popped out of thin air and all of a sudden people had to stop killing and stealing from each other, human morality had been evolving for thousands of year prior to christ. Not sure what you mean by "not holding true to my atheist beliefs" as the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god, and that is all that is required to be an atheist.

[quote]Like many atheist you ask a very good question or dance around it anyway. If God exist why does He allow evil? Well if there is no God there is no evil you must come to grasp with this part of your theology if you are to be a true atheist.[/quote]

Like I said chrisitnaity doens't have a monopoly on the word "evil" and how it should be defined. I don't have any problem with exchanging it with another word like "badness" or "naughtiness" to avoid the confusion, but evil does seem appropriate given these days it means more than satan doing his dirty work.

[quote]As for the answer to your question, one can not vandalize their own property. This is how God does not murder. Also the people that God destroyed or had destroyed where the wicked.[/quote]

He should destroy himself then.

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1916361' date='Jul 10 2009, 01:07 AM']"Atheist" such as Bonkers want to play both sides and cherry pick Christian Morality when it suites them but reject the God which is the foundation of that morality.[/quote]

I think this is where we misunderstand each other. You think god is the foundation of morality, whereas I think survival and evolutionary development is the foundation of morality.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1916382' date='Jul 10 2009, 01:27 AM']At one point you claim this is true, but atheists don't like it, later you claim true atheists in fact do full embrace an amoral universe. You can't make that sort of general claim and expect it to be true. Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Chomsky et cetera and other major atheistic thinkers would certainly not fall under your generalizations.[/quote]

Atheists who are not true to their theology don't like it. Atheists like Richard Dawkins do understand that without God "life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good..."

Any atheists who tries to argue morality, good, evil, is something more than just their opinion is not true to the theology they claim to hold.


[quote name='Hassan' post='1916382' date='Jul 10 2009, 01:27 AM']It may not be bad in the ultimate sense you are talking about. It is certainly savage and utterly contrary to what most people would ascribe to a ultimately good being. If Melisovic publically gave the orders ascribed to your God he war crimes trial would have been over in a day and we'd call him a monster. You yourself don't seem to deny the orders are contrary to any sense of proportional justice or simple decency, you simply try to play a tautology. And to a degree your tautology is justified. If You're God exists and he is morally perfect then for any action 'x' 'x' is morally justified. If you define morality with your God's will then by definition everything he orders is moral. But is speaking to someone outside your religious universe this not going to go far. Most people looking at the apparent morally depraved actions ordered by Yahwah in certian parts of the OT would be unable to assent that they are morally unassailable and won't cede the requisite antecedent. Which is why I feel this is a useless argument for atheists and Christians to argue over. You all are working on two very different moral planes.

Now the death of children can be bad in a godless universe, just not in the sense of a violation of a transcendent moral law. It is subjective, but so is your moral law. You simply move the subjectivity one step back.[/quote]

My point of argument is not that God exist or does not. But only the would be reality if God does not exist. Atheist or those that claim to be atheist must come to grasp that morality, good and evil, right and wrong do not exist if God does not exist. Any atheist that says otherwise is only stating their subjective opinion, and nothing more.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1916529' date='Jul 10 2009, 04:45 AM']I think this is where we misunderstand each other. You think god is the foundation of morality, whereas I think survival and evolutionary development is the foundation of morality.[/quote]

Your opinion is noted. Unfortunately morality does not exist in your theology. In your theology God is made up concept just as morality is a made up concept to explain nature.