View Full Version : People On Trial: Are People's Laws Moral?
Before we can accuse God, we should examine ourselves first, are we people moral? I don' t think anyone here is moral. As such how dare are we to accuse God as immoral? It is hypocrisy to accuse God and others of immorality when we ourselves are immoral?
Matthew 7:3-5
Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?
How dare you say to your brother, ‘Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,’ when you have a log in your own eye?
You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
There are some people in this forum who thinks that homosexuality is ok as it is individual's freedom of right to do what they think is ok? What say you all? Yes, it is individual's freedom of choice but do we encourage that or be indifferent to the perversion? If we are homosexuals ourselves then there is nothing much I can say or we be hypocrites. If we allow one perversion, will we eventually allow all? Will we then go back into the era of Sodom and Gomorrah whereby sexual perversions of all sorts are rife?...And the moment you enter these towns....well.... men and women will be after your ass.....and every day!:lol:
Gd Bless.:pray:
Gambini
06-10-2014, 01:03 PM
The whole idea of finite beings placing God on trial for his *actions* is utter lunacy to begin with. ALL of God's *actions* would NECESSARILY be executed while taking ALL the hidden variables into account. So it logically follows that no finite being can ever judge the moral *actions* of God. And we don't determine the goodness of God BASED on his *actions*. Rather, we determine his goodness based on his NATURE, which is reflected in his actions *WHEN* all the hidden variables are factored in. But the thing that really bugs me is this ...
Richard and Rose know that in order for them to rant and rave about biblical morality, there has to be an OBJECTIVE standard of morality. My point is that they can't have that under nontheism. Morality is NECESSARILY subjective under nontheism. That's why *ALL* moral nihilists are nontheists ...
Rose will argue that it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone because all humans are self-aware beings. What kind of an argument is that??? Seriously. The only way you can claim there is any universal and timeless moral truth is if there is a TRANSCENDENT source of that moral truth. How the hell do you get from humans are self-aware beings to the assertion that such beings are OBJECTIVELY and ONTOLOGICALLY more valuable than snails??? Why is that OBJECTIVELY superior than arguing it is morally better to kill humans because they are the number one polluters of the biosphere??? She won't answer that because she CAN'T. She knows she is SUBJECTIVELY assigning a special status for humans ...
Richard argues that morality is OBJECTIVE because it is based on defined principles of justice. I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind that Richard is INTENTIONALLY being deceptive here. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE *DISAGREE* ON WHAT IS JUST!!! In other words, ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust. And not only that, even if the huge majority of humans agreed that justice should be defined as x, that's STILL a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of what should be deemed as just! So not only is Richard and Rose ARBITRARILY assigning a special ontological status to humans, but to human reasoning as well ...
Let's say there was an advanced civilization that was able to create entire galaxies and they viewed humans as primitive ants. Under Richard's view, why would it be OBJECTIVELY wrong for them to get rid of us??? ...
And the whole thing about assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings is highly problematic under nontheism. That would mean people with mental handicaps are BY DEFINITION less valuable than people who have a more acute sense of awareness.
Remember, if OBJECTIVE morality is inconsistent with nontheism, then Richard and Rose are essentially out of a job. Their bread and butter is to rant and rave about biblical morality. But if morality is ultimately subjective under nontheism, then all moral views would simply be a matter of personal taste.
BINI aka The Mystic Meanie
Before we can accuse God, we should examine ourselves first, are we people moral? I don' t think anyone here is moral. As such how dare are we to accuse God as immoral? It is hypocrisy to accuse God and others of immorality when we ourselves are immoral?
Hello Cheow
Of course we know people can act in immoral ways! Why do you think that I conclude that the Bible was written by men? Because it is so full of injustice and immorality!! I've only said this like a million times!! :arghh:
God is the one who is suppose to be an example of what it means to be righteous and moral, as it is I'm a thousand times more moral than the Biblegod! :lol:
There are some people in this forum who thinks that homosexuality is ok as it is individual's freedom of right to do what they think is ok? What say you all? Yes, it is individual's freedom of choice but do we encourage that or be indifferent to the perversion? If we are homosexuals ourselves then there is nothing much I can say or we be hypocrites. If we allow one perversion, will we eventually allow all? Will we then go back into the era of Sodom and Gomorrah whereby sexual perversions of all sorts are rife?...And the moment you enter these towns....well.... men and women will be after your ass.....and every day!:lol:
Gd Bless.:pray:
I am one of those people who thinks that we are all entitled to equal human rights to choose whoever we want to have a relationship with. Who are you to say that homosexuality is a perversion? Your mentality is just like the primitive men who wrote the Bible and thought that women were inferior to men, and it was okay to deny them equal human rights. Shame on you. :nono:
Rose
Rose will argue that it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone because all humans are self-aware beings. What kind of an argument is that??? Seriously. The only way you can claim there is any universal and timeless moral truth is if there is a TRANSCENDENT source of that moral truth. How the hell do you get from humans are self-aware beings to the assertion that such beings are OBJECTIVELY and ONTOLOGICALLY more valuable than snails??? Why is that OBJECTIVELY superior than arguing it is morally better to kill humans because they are the number one polluters of the biosphere??? She won't answer that because she CAN'T. She knows she is SUBJECTIVELY assigning a special status for humans ...
BINI aka The Mystic Meanie
I don't know why I'm wasting my time, but I will do so for the sake of others who might be led astray by your ranting. The least you could do when presenting someones argument is to state it correctly. It looks like I'm going to have to sit little Bini down like a kindergartener and explain my position to him one more time ... maybe larger font will help? :p
Objective fact:
All people share the quality of being human, as such all people are entitled to equal human rights.
It really is quite simple, I'm surprised you are having so much difficulty understanding it. I'm not really sure why you are bringing the value of snails into the picture, unless you feel small like a snail.
Hello Cheow
Of course we know people can act in immoral ways! Why do you think that I conclude that the Bible was written by men? Because it is so full of injustice and immorality!! I've only said this like a million times!! :arghh:
God is the one who is suppose to be an example of what it means to be righteous and moral, as it is I'm a thousand times more moral than the Biblegod! :lol:
I am one of those people who thinks that we are all entitled to equal human rights to choose whoever we want to have a relationship with. Who are you to say that homosexuality is a perversion? Your mentality is just like the primitive men who wrote the Bible and thought that women were inferior to men, and it was okay to deny them equal human rights. Shame on you. :nono:
Rose
There is no such things as equal human rights. It's humanly impossible because of the multi- variables and obstacles, so don't waste your time fighting for equal human rights but rather fight for something more achievable such as more protection for women. A helper does not mean inferior and to rule does not mean to rule but to lead and protect. It has always been the role of men in all culture to protect the womenfolks and children and property. Women has many rights over men and men has many rights over women, they are equal in their individual roles working together mutually towards a common goal.
God Bless.:pray:
There is no such things as equal human rights. It's humanly impossible because of the multi- variables and obstacles, so don't waste your time fighting for equal human rights but rather fight for something more achievable such as more protection for women.
Don't be idiotic! Of course there are human rights! It's only closed minded men like yourself who are trapped in the primitive male mindset of biblical thinking that think there aren't. All people share the quality of being human, and thus should be given equal human rights.
Women don't need men to protect them, they need men to quit abusing them and violating their human rights by trying to dominate and control them! Just stop! :stop:
A helper does not mean inferior and to rule does not mean to rule but to lead and protect. It has always been the role of men in all culture to protect the womenfolks and children and property. Women has many rights over men and men has many rights over women, they are equal in their individual roles working together mutually towards a common goal.
God Bless.:pray:
Marriage partners should be helpers to each other that is what a true relationship is all about. The Bible is based on the primitive mindset of Patriarchal systems of rule, where men dominate and control women. Modern, intelligent people know that denying women equal human rights is unjust and unfair ... that is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) was written. It's time you left behind the primitive, barbaric mindset of your ancestors and step into the 21st century. Quit trying to justify the ideas that ignorant men wrote in the Bible, it makes you look like them.
Don't be idiotic! Of course there are human rights! It's only closed minded men like yourself who are trapped in the primitive male mindset of biblical thinking that think there aren't. All people share the quality of being human, and thus should be given equal human rights.
Women don't need men to protect them, they need men to quit abusing them and violating their human rights by trying to dominate and control them! Just stop! :stop:
Marriage partners should be helpers to each other that is what a true relationship is all about. The Bible is based on the primitive mindset of Patriarchal systems of rule, where men dominate and control women. Modern, intelligent people know that denying women equal human rights is unjust and unfair ... that is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) was written. It's time you left behind the primitive, barbaric mindset of your ancestors and step into the 21st century. Quit trying to justify the ideas that ignorant men wrote in the Bible, it makes you look like them.
It's time to stop making a folol of yourself Rose, IT IS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS Don't waste your time, it is better to spend your time pursuing other more achievable human rights such as more protection for women. I have logically told you that unless the lower human basic needs based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs such as security and safety are met, will humans be interested to meet higher needs such as equal human rights, And given the multiple variables and obstacles in culture, religion, laws, norms, politics, educational level, wealth, health etc, it is humanly impossible. Better to wait for a very intelligent and powerful force which we call God to help us achieve equal human rights.
God bless.:pray:
It's time to stop making a folol of yourself Rose, IT IS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS Don't waste your time, it is better to spend your time pursuing other more achievable human rights such as more protection for women. I have logically told you that unless the lower human basic needs based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs such as security and safety are met, will humans be interested to meet higher needs such as equal human rights, And given the multiple variables and obstacles in culture, religion, laws, norms, politics, educational level, wealth, health etc, it is humanly impossible. Better to wait for a very intelligent and powerful force which we call God to help us achieve equal human rights.
God bless.:pray:
Hello Cheow
Whether or not something can be achieved, has no bearing on its validity! The fact of the matter is that all people share the quality of being human and as such are entitled to equal human rights, just like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states! All intelligent people know this, which is why they continue to fight for equality for all humans!
People with intelligence know that the solution to gaining equal human rights for all people, lies in the education of ignorant men whose mental growth has been stagnated by primitive ideas like those found in the Bible. Yes, women do need to be protected from violent, abusive men, but that doesn't mean they should be denied equal human rights. It's the ignorant, abusive men that need to be taught that it is not their place to rule over and control women. Punish the perpetrators not the victims.
As for the intelligence of the Biblegod, it's only as high as the primitive, barbaric men who created him. :lol: Fortunately, many humans have slowly risen above the ignorant, biased ideas of the Bible and realize that all humans are equal. That is why we now have a universal declaration that states clearly and unambiguously that all humans are entitled to equal human rights. Sad to say, it is people like you who are making the struggle for human rights that much harder. :mad:
Hello Cheow
Whether or not something can be achieved, has no bearing on its validity! The fact of the matter is that all people share the quality of being human and as such are entitled to equal human rights, just like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states! All intelligent people know this, which is why they continue to fight for equality for all humans!
People with intelligence know that the solution to gaining equal human rights for all people, lies in the education of ignorant men whose mental growth has been stagnated by primitive ideas like those found in the Bible. Yes, women do need to be protected from violent, abusive men, but that doesn't mean they should be denied equal human rights. It's the ignorant, abusive men that need to be taught that it is not their place to rule over and control women. Punish the perpetrators not the victims.
As for the intelligence of the Biblegod, it's only as high as the primitive, barbaric men who created him. :lol: Fortunately, many humans have slowly risen above the ignorant, biased ideas of the Bible and realize that all humans are equal. That is why we now have a universal declaration that states clearly and unambiguously that all humans are entitled to equal human rights. Sad to say, it is people like you who are making the struggle for human rights that much harder. :mad:
Yes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all of us should respect religions meaning you cannot rid of the "supposed primitive barbaric men who created religions and gods" away from the picture. As such, based on your concept of primitive men and their religions are the cause of the inequality of equal human rights, then that inequality will continue to stay as long as there are "primitive men and their primitive religions". What you should blame is the theory of evolution which have existed for the supposed millions of years which made the supposed primitive men behavior of denying equal human rights to women so that they could rule and control women for the survival of the fittest. Habits die hard. Therefore, You should fight for the abolition of the theory of evolution which is the supposed cause of the inequality of human rights.
You can only have equal human rights if the world's basic needs such as food, money, safety , security are met. And 80 % of the world's population is living below poverty line, do you think they will be interested in equal human rights when their survival and basic needs are not met? And based on the normal distribution curve which is statistically present in everything, the most about 20% of the world's population can achieve equal rights, 60% can achieved half the equal rights and 20% can achieve minimal equal rights. That already says so much of the impossibility of achieving human equal rights. Keep on Dreaming!...Don't waste your time!
That is why I said the only way to achieve equal human rights is for a super intelligent and powerful force we call God to intervene and help us to achieve this elusive goal.
God Bless.:pray:
Yes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all of us should respect religions meaning you cannot rid of the "supposed primitive barbaric men who created religions and gods" away from the picture. As such, based on your concept of primitive men and their religions are the cause of the inequality of equal human rights, then that inequality will continue to stay as long as there are "primitive men and their primitive religions". What you should blame is the theory of evolution which have existed for the supposed millions of years which made the supposed primitive men behavior of denying equal human rights to women so that they could rule and control women for the survival of the fittest. Habits die hard. Therefore, You should fight for the abolition of the theory of evolution which is the supposed cause of the inequality of human rights.
Your rambling words about evolution and denial of human rights makes no sense! Evolution is a process of change over time, which applies to human knowledge also. As human knowledge grows, so does our intelligence and ability to use reason and logic. Intelligent people know that we are all humans and as such are entitled to equal rights, that is why a group of intelligent people got together and formed a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. :D
People should be free to practice whatever religion they choose, but they are not free to impose their religious beliefs on others! The biggest problem with the Christian religion is that it seeks to impose the mindset and ideas of primitive men upon its followers, keeping them frozen in a mentality of superstition and bias. Christians are not free to oppose the biased and immoral ideas of the Biblegod, because they are written in a book that they hold to be his word.
You can only have equal human rights if the world's basic needs such as food, money, safety , security are met. And 80 % of the world's population is living below poverty line, do you think they will be interested in equal human rights when their survival and basic needs are not met? And based on the normal distribution curve which is statistically present in everything, the most about 20% of the world's population can achieve equal rights, 60% can achieved half the equal rights and 20% can achieve minimal equal rights. That already says so much of the impossibility of achieving human equal rights. Keep on Dreaming!...Don't waste your time!
That is why I said the only way to achieve equal human rights is for a super intelligent and powerful force we call God to intervene and help us to achieve this elusive goal.
God Bless.:pray:
What are you talking about? It is the words of the Biblegod, written in the Bible that deny peoples human rights in the first place! It took intelligent humans to declare that all humans are created equal ... NOT god! :lol:
Take care,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
06-12-2014, 08:57 PM
Richard argues that morality is OBJECTIVE because it is based on defined principles of justice. I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind that Richard is INTENTIONALLY being deceptive here. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE *DISAGREE* ON WHAT IS JUST!!! In other words, ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust. And not only that, even if the huge majority of humans agreed that justice should be defined as x, that's STILL a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of what should be deemed as just! So not only is Richard and Rose ARBITRARILY assigning a special ontological status to humans, but to human reasoning as well ...
The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust." On the contrary, justice is, by definition, an objective concept. That's why it's represented by a pair of scales, which objectively measure the objective weight of objects. Here's how I explained it in my article Morality is Objective, like a Pair of Scales (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/12/22/morality-is-objective-like-a-pair-of-scales-another-fatal-flaw-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).
What determines if something is just or unjust? The answer flows immediately from the definition of the word. Here are some representative samples from various dictionaries (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/just) on the net:
JUST (adj)
Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
Done or made according to principle; equitable
Conforming to high moral standards; honest
Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
Fair or impartial in action or judgment
Justice is grounded in reason, rationality, truth, and fairness. For a judgment to be just it must correspond to reality which is why it is objective (as opposed to subjective). Justice, fairness, and equality all lie at the root of our moral intuitions. Indeed, the word iniquity is based on the Latin root iniquitas which literally denotes unequalness, unevenness, injustice. Something is just and moral if it is equitable, fair, reasonable, impartial. It is an objective property no different than the objective fact that two authentic coins of the same denomination have the same weight. That is why Lady Justice, an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems, is pictured with a scale. Nothing is more objective than a scale. She wears a blindfold because justice must be impartial and objective, which means she ignores any factors not specifically relevant to the thing being judged (weighed, in the metaphor of the scales).
Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective. It is taught to children throughout the world in some form of the Golden Rule which tells us how to tap into our moral intuitions by putting ourselves in the place of the other. This helps us be impartial and fair and promotes mercy, compassion, kindness, and empathy. The Golden Rule stands “in light of its own reason” as explained by Professor R. M. MacIver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morrison_MacIver) in his article The Deep Beauty of the Golden Rule (http://books.google.com/books?id=EXpLpWh24sIC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=the+deep+beauty+of+the+golden+rule&source=bl&ots=LDdSy4Cfxz&sig=7FWeMRiS_0SZYgqJtRrT1gFV0eE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fHVrUM_QA6a7igL6vIGIAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false) (provided online by Google Books):
Do to others as you would have others do to you. This is the only rule that stands by itself in the light of its own reason, the only rule that can stand by itself in the naked, warring universe, in the face of the contending values of men and groups.
Rationality and the Golden Rule are the foundation of morality as explained in my articles The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/11/the-golden-rule-and-the-foundation-of-objective-morality/) and The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/). See also my wife’s article, Justice: The Root of Morality (http://godandbutterfly.net/justice-the-root-of-morality/), on her blog GodAndButterfly.net (http://godandbutterfly.net/).
Let's say there was an advanced civilization that was able to create entire galaxies and they viewed humans as primitive ants. Under Richard's view, why would it be OBJECTIVELY wrong for them to get rid of us??? ...
My moral theory is based on the scientific definition of objectivity. It is founded on UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES that apply to all rational, self-aware beings. I explain this in detail in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/). Therefore, in as much as the "advanced civilization" that you hypothesize would consist of rational self-aware beings, they would recognize that humans also are rational self-aware beings and so it would be objectively immoral to wipe us out.
It would be very interesting if you would try to articulate how God serves as a foundation of morality in light of Euthyphro. And before you try to say that objective morality is based on "God's nature" take a look at my refutation of that idea in my article Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/12/22/morality-is-objective-like-a-pair-of-scales-another-fatal-flaw-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).
And the whole thing about assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings is highly problematic under nontheism. That would mean people with mental handicaps are BY DEFINITION less valuable than people who have a more acute sense of awareness.
My theory is not based on the idea of "assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings." That's an entirely fallacious approach to morality in my estimation. Value is grounded love, which is innate to all rational self-aware beings.
Remember, if OBJECTIVE morality is inconsistent with nontheism, then Richard and Rose are essentially out of a job. Their bread and butter is to rant and rave about biblical morality. But if morality is ultimately subjective under nontheism, then all moral views would simply be a matter of personal taste.
Not true. Morality is objective by its very nature. It is the theistic attempt to ground it God that makes it subjective.
It's great that you are trying to deal with this topic in a rational fashion. Maybe we'll finally be able to make some progress understanding each other.
Shine on!
:sunny:
Gambini
06-14-2014, 07:42 AM
"The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust"
I'm saying that under nontheism, ALL moral actions are nothing more than SUBJECTIVE interpretations of what should fall under the category of "Just" and "Unjust". No action can be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral under that scenario. All you're doing is saying x is objectively good, but you can LITERALLY define x to be anything you want. Under a theistic moral system, our natural moral sense is OBJECTIVE because it is derived from the very nature of the source of all being. God, as the very default state of being, has the OBJECTIVE authority to decree how you should function morally. And the ONLY moral system that God can decree is that which is in accordance with his nature (just as the only system of mathematics he can utilize in all creation is that which is in accordance with his nature). Any deviation from the moral OR mathematical nature of God is OBJECTIVELY wrong ...
And given nontheism, why should we believe that there IS such a thing as objective right/wrong AND that our innate moral sense would actually CORRESPOND with it??? That is a theistic account of moral truth in itself.
"Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective"
Really? So tell me, is it RATIONAL for me to run into a burning building to save a child and risk losing my life??? How is that RATIONAL under nontheism??? The idea of objective morality is IRRATIONAL under nontheism. Altruism is IRRATIONAL if it involves any potential harm to me or my family. Under theism, altruism is RATIONAL because it coheres with the OBJECTIVE moral nature of God, from whom our innate moral sense is derived. Whenever we don't adhere to our innate moral sense, we are failing to BE what we were CREATED to be. And every creation has to justify its very existence by BEING what it was created to be.
"In as much as the "advanced civilization" that you hypothesize would consist of rational self-aware beings, they would recognize that humans also are rational self-aware beings and so it would be objectively immoral to wipe us out"
Not if those self-aware beings were the greatest polluters of the biosphere. And not if those self-aware beings, with a documented history of warfare, had the potential to blow the entire biosphere to smithereens with a nuclear arsenal that could go off at any moment.
"My theory is not based on the idea of "assigning OBJECTIVE value to self-aware beings""
So WHY isn't it morally superior to preserve the biosphere by killing off the number one polluters of the biosphere (and the only known beings who will even kill for the sake of killing)??? Where's the rationale for that? You're assigning SUBJECTIVE value to human beings simply because you are a human being. There's no way in hell that you can get an OBJECTIVELY superior value of humans over ants in a nontheistic moral theory. Under a theistic moral system, man is OBJECTIVELY more valuable than ants by his very ontology (regardless of his moral deviations).
The bottom line is this: You can't assign OBJECTIVITY to a SUBJECTIVE goal. ALL goals are ultimately SUBJECTIVE under nontheism.
SHALOMness
Gambini
06-14-2014, 08:23 AM
"I don't know why I'm wasting my time"
I don't know why you actually think you've explained anything. Your first claim is a fact, but you followed it with a SUBJECTIVE assertion. You said ...
"All people share the quality of being human"
THAT is a fact.
"All people are entitled to equal human rights"
THAT is a SUBJECTIVE assertion. How do you get "All people are OBJECTIVELY entitled to equal human rights" from the specific fact that all people are human??? Matter fact, let's take your radical atheism up a notch ...
Given that devout Christians oppose the right of women to perform child sacrifice (abortion), the right of sodomites to marry and even teach their own children to follow the moral guidelines in the bible (which you claim is poison), WHY shouldn't devout Christians be rounded up and locked up??? Isn't that the RATIONAL thing to do???
"I don't know why I'm wasting my time"
I don't know why you actually think you've explained anything. Your first claim is a fact, but you followed it with a SUBJECTIVE assertion. You said ...
"All people share the quality of being human"
THAT is a fact.
"All people are entitled to equal human rights"
THAT is a SUBJECTIVE assertion. How do you get "All people are OBJECTIVELY entitled to equal human rights" from the specific fact that all people are human??? Matter fact, let's take your radical atheism up a notch ...
A person is entitled to human rights, because they are human :doh: ... doesn't get any simpler than that. :lol:
Human rights are the rights afforded humans and anyone who is human is entitled to human rights!
All one needs to be entitled to human rights, is to be human!
The fact that all people are human, entitles them to human rights, just like the Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) states! :thumb:
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Given that devout Christians oppose the right of women to perform child sacrifice (abortion), the right of sodomites to marry and even teach their own children to follow the moral guidelines in the bible (which you claim is poison), WHY shouldn't devout Christians be rounded up and locked up??? Isn't that the RATIONAL thing to do???
Voicing ones opposition to the human rights of others, is far different than forcing your beliefs onto others. Devout Christians can voice their bigoted opinions about other people all they want, but in a free society they cannot deny others equal human rights, like the Bible teaches. That is why we have separation of church and state in this country, to keep religious fanatics from imposing their fundamentalists beliefs on others.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-14-2014, 10:00 AM
"The fact that people disagree about how to determine what is just or unjust in complex situations does not mean that "ALL actions are SUBJECTIVELY classified as just or unjust"
I'm saying that under nontheism, ALL moral actions are nothing more than SUBJECTIVE interpretations of what should fall under the category of "Just" and "Unjust". No action can be OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral under that scenario. All you're doing is saying x is objectively good, but you can LITERALLY define x to be anything you want.
Good morning Gambini! :yo:
Your assertion that I am "saying x is objectively good" is false. My moral theory is not based on the idea of the existence of an "objective good." I have not used that phrase in any of the articles I have written on the subject. Your argument has nothing to do with anything I have written. It is a textbook example of a straw man misrepresentation of my theory. If you want to refute my moral theory, you first must read and understand it, and then show that SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN is false or unsupported. You have not done that.
Under a theistic moral system, our natural moral sense is OBJECTIVE because it is derived from the very nature of the source of all being. God, as the very default state of being, has the OBJECTIVE authority to decree how you should function morally. And the ONLY moral system that God can decree is that which is in accordance with his nature (just as the only system of mathematics he can utilize in all creation is that which is in accordance with his nature). Any deviation from the moral OR mathematical nature of God is OBJECTIVELY wrong ...
Again, you demonstrate that you have not read and/or understood my argument. My moral theory is based upon the concept of INTEGRITY which is the fundamental nature of what it means for anything TO BE. It is analogous to the Law of Identity: A is A. Therefore, my moral theory is universal, fundamentally ontological and objective, and applies to all rational beings.
Morality is objective by its very nature. Justice is like a pair of scales. It makes no sense to say that scales would fail to work if there were not some "objective authority" to decree how they respond to the weights placed on them.
And given nontheism, why should we believe that there IS such a thing as objective right/wrong AND that our innate moral sense would actually CORRESPOND with it??? That is a theistic account of moral truth in itself.
Objectivity is a philosophical and scientific concept. It refers to the real world. It does not entail any reference to any metaphysical speculative "god" that can not be objectively demonstrated to exist. It seems quite ironic and self-contradictory that you think your subjective idea about God is the foundation of objective reality.
Why should we believe that there is an objective right/wrong? For the same reason we believe that there is an objective right/wrong answer to the question "What is 2 + 2?".
"Morality is grounded in rationality and so is, by its very nature, objective"
Really? So tell me, is it RATIONAL for me to run into a burning building to save a child and risk losing my life??? How is that RATIONAL under nontheism??? The idea of objective morality is IRRATIONAL under nontheism. Altruism is IRRATIONAL if it involves any potential harm to me or my family. Under theism, altruism is RATIONAL because it coheres with the OBJECTIVE moral nature of God, from whom our innate moral sense is derived.
Altruism is a choice one makes out of their love for another. It has nothing to do with morality per se. No one is morally obligated to sacrifice themselves for another.
Your assertion that our "innate moral sense" is derived from God has no foundation in logic or facts. It is mere assertion which you have not justified. My moral theory explains the origin of our objective morality without any appeal to God.
Whenever we don't adhere to our innate moral sense, we are failing to BE what we were CREATED to be. And every creation has to justify its very existence by BEING what it was created to be.
Your comment is curiously close to the ontological foundation of my theory, which is INTEGRITY. The only difference is that integrity is not dependent upon the concept of someone being told what to be by someone else. On the contrary, real integrity comes from one's own heart and mind, independent of any "other."
Integrity is the foundation of my moral theory. What does it mean for something "to be"? It must have integrity - A must be A. It is no mere coincidence that that word has both a moral and an ontological meaning. To be immoral is to be corrupt, which refers to the disintegration of the integrity of self. This is the essence of my assertion that religion tends to corrupt (disintegrate) the minds and morals of believers. It is a demonstrable fact, as documented in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/) in which I show that his attempt to defend his beliefs literally DISINTEGRATED his mind and his morals. I have found this true in every case of every Christian apologist I have ever reviewed. William Lane Craig is a particularly relevant example since he attempted to justify his "divine command" theory of morality by literally DISINTEGRATING the innate INTEGRITY of moral epistemology and moral ontology. I explained this in my article The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/11/the-golden-rule-and-the-foundation-of-objective-morality/).
Great chatting!
:sunny:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.