Zone1 If I had not been raised Catholic... it would have been a disaster

[ding]

Since that never happened there is nothing to learn from it.

Thank you for proving me correct.

 

[Blues Man]

You want to ignore reality, be my guest. Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning good he rationalizes what he did was good.

No he doesn't.

We are conditioned from birth to obey the mores of the society we live in.

If a person could be raised with absolutely no influences from society he would not magically know what is "right" and "wrong".

 

[Blues Man]

Thank you for proving me correct.

There you go again illustrating your need to say you win the internet.

 

[ding]

No he doesn't.

We are conditioned from birth to obey the mores of the society we live in.

If a person could be raised with absolutely no influences from society he would not magically know what is "right" and "wrong".

Thanks for proving me correct again.

 

[ding]

There you go again illustrating your need to say you win the internet.

Not the internet, just this discussion.

 

[buttercup]

Theism did not invent the concepts of good and evil.

I didn't claim that theism invented the concepts of good and evil. My point was that an atheistic worldview cannot account for objective morality, and without an objective universal moral standard, words like "good" and "evil" are ultimately meaningless.

And if the terms good and bad mean different things to different people then morality is indeed relative.

No, that is incorrect. People having differing beliefs has nothing to do with whether or not something is objectively true.

Truth is truth, no matter what any of us believes. Truth is not dependent on our beliefs or perceptions, it just is what it is.

But anyway, it seems that you're confirming that you believe morality is relative. What you don't seem to get is that if morality is indeed relative, then there is no such thing as a true morality. And again, by that logic, words like "good" or "evil" are meaningless.

Thankfully that's not the case. And I get the feeling you know that, intuitively. Even though your mind might be saying something different.

 

[buttercup]

If you say a god created all humans then human nature is created by that same god and if that human nature influences what you do then you have no free will because at least part of your decision making processes were programmed by a god.

No. God gave us free will, since Day One, and we still have free will. God didn't "create" our fallen human nature, that is something we inherited, but it's not something that cannot be overcome.

In other words, our human nature that is prone to selfishness is not an excuse to absolve ourselves of responsibility, because we still have the ability to make choices, whether good or evil.

And it's my positions that Lewis' standards of behavior are nothing but behaviors that have evolved as humans started living together in large groups. When humans were living in small tribal and familial bands the standards were different. Morality was different. What was considered good and evil were different than they were a couple thousand years after humans started living in large settlements together.

People often ignore the power of society on human behaviors

He goes over that very claim in his book, Mere Christianity. In fact, he goes over all the usual claims and objections, and dismantles all of them, in a very clear, logical way.

 

[Blues Man]

Thanks for proving me correct again.

You're not.

People do not just "know" right from wrong.
And "right " and "wrong" mean different things to different people

 

[Blues Man]

Not the internet, just this discussion.

You haven't done that either

 

[Blues Man]

I didn't claim that theism invented the concepts of good and evil. My point was that an atheistic worldview cannot account for objective morality, and without an objective universal moral standard, words like "good" and "evil" are ultimately meaningless.



No, that is incorrect. People having differing beliefs has nothing to do with whether or not something is objectively true.

Truth is truth, no matter what any of us believes. Truth is not dependent on our beliefs or perceptions, it just is what it is.

But anyway, it seems that you're confirming that you believe morality is relative. What you don't seem to get is that if morality is indeed relative, then there is no such thing as a true morality. And again, by that logic, words like "good" or "evil" are meaningless.

Thankfully that's not the case. And I get the feeling you know that, intuitively. Even though your mind might be saying something different.

The terms "good " and "evil" are only meaningful in the context of any particular society. Good and evil are human concepts.

The Tao states good and evil are one as neither can exist without the other. Or simply stated; If you name the good the bad will appear.

There is no objective standard for good and evil because for there to be then there would have to be some other authority than humans and there isn't one that I recognize as such.

 

[Blues Man]

No. God gave us free will, since Day One, and we still have free will. God didn't "create" our fallen human nature, that is something we inherited, but it's not something that cannot be overcome.

In other words, our human nature that is prone to selfishness is not an excuse to absolve ourselves of responsibility, because we still have the ability to make choices, whether good or evil.




He goes over that very claim in his book, Mere Christianity. In fact, he goes over all the usual claims and objections, and dismantles all of them, in a very clear, logical way.

If you say a god created you then he created everything about you even your nature be that peaceful or warlike.

If your god created me he knew he was creating a person who would not worship any gods. So how is that my choice?

If you believe you have free will then you have to believe you can surprise your god but if your god is omniscient you cannot surprise it. He made you knowing exactly what you would do at every turn.

So for you to have free will your god cannot be omniscient.

 

[buttercup]

The terms "good " and "evil" are only meaningful in the context of any particular society. Good and evil are human concepts.

That's your opinion, and it is a commonly-held opinion, but still just that... opinion. It's not the truth.

There are so many problems with moral relativism, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I don't want this post to turn into an essay, so I'll try to keep it short.

Again, if moral relativism is true, then there's no such thing as a true right or wrong. Morality would not even be meaningful in the context of a particular society, because the morality of any particular society would be their opinion only, as opposed to something that is objectively true. No particular society could have a morality that is truly better than any other society.

Let's take a look at that. So let's say there are two societies. Society A believes in murder, cannibalism, enslaving and violently abusing animals, and raping women. Society B believes in protecting the innocent, peace, kindness, and treating others fairly. By relativist logic, Society A is morally right, simply because they believe they are morally right. AND, by relativist logic, Society A is not worse than Society B....it cannot be, if there is no true morality.

Not only that, but you can't even criticize Society A, or try to get them to stop what they're doing, because according to moral relativism, they are just as right as any other society.

So what that boils down to is that actions such as rape, murder, theft, violent assault, animal abuse, child abuse and torture are not truly wrong. Again, because there is no such thing as an objectively true morality, if moral relativism is true.

Do you really believe that? I don't think you do.

The Tao states good and evil are one as neither can exist without the other. Or simply stated; If you name the good the bad will appear.

The Tao is wrong. They are definitely not one. But the Tao is partially correct. Evil cannot exist without good. Because for something to be "evil" there needs to be something fixed to measure it by... there needs to be an objectively true good. So, the existence of evil in this world is actually evidence that there is a true good.

That said, I believe that good can exist without evil. Goodness is a real thing, whereas evil is the absence or opposition of good. Evil is not something that exists in and of itself.

There is no objective standard for good and evil because for there to be then there would have to be some other authority than humans and there isn't one that I recognize as such.

Respectfully, that's incorrect. There is an objective standard for good and evil. But you are right when you say there would have to be an authority that transcends humanity. There is. That authority is the Creator. God.

ETA: Not all atheists believe in moral relativism. Even some of them have eventually realized that the idea of moral relativism is illogical and problematic. So there are certain well-known atheists who state that morality is objective, but of course they don't attribute it to God. I've seen debates on this topic between atheists and theists, and I have never once seen an atheist that even comes close to making a valid, compelling case for objective morality apart from God.

 

[buttercup]

If you say a god created you then he created everything about you even your nature be that peaceful or warlike.

Nope. God created us with free will. What we do with that free will is up to us. Again, God didn't create our fallen nature. We inherited that from the first humans who did wrong. But even if that hadn't happened, we would still have ended up in the same situation we're in today, because unfortunately almost all people misuse their free will, and have to learn things the hard way.

Besides, you have been ignoring the other important part of this that I mentioned before. We also have a conscience. So even though we have a fallen human nature, that is no excuse, because our conscience tell us when we're doing something wrong.

If your god created me he knew he was creating a person who would not worship any gods. So how is that my choice?

First of all, you don't know what the future holds. I was a nonbeliever for many years of my life... and I was similar to you in the sense that I never ever ever thought I would become "religious." (Now I understand it's not about religion, it's about the reality that there is a God, and we were made to be in a loving relationship with our Creator.)

So you can't say for sure how you're going to change or what your life is going to look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

Secondly, just because God knows the future does not mean that we don't have free will. We still do. And as I was just telling my other half recently... God respects and honors free will. God is 'libertarian' in that sense, He doesn't force Himself on people, of course that would be wrong. So you have a choice. I can't tell you what to do, but I can tell you this. Coming to Christ was without a doubt the best decision I ever made, and my only regret was not doing it years sooner. I can't even begin to express how much better my life is now, as a born again believer and child of God.

If you believe you have free will then you have to believe you can surprise your god but if your god is omniscient you cannot surprise it. He made you knowing exactly what you would do at every turn.

So for you to have free will your god cannot be omniscient.

Nope, that is simply incorrect. What God allows and what God wants are two different things. God knows what we're going to choose, but that doesn't mean we didn't have a choice. We have free will, every day you can choose what you're going to do. But I will say this.... people should be careful with their choices. Because although everyone has free will up until the day they die.... ultimately it can be more difficult to make the right choices if one lives a lifetime of making bad choices. That reminds me of a quote:

"Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny."

 

[Blues Man]

That's your opinion, and it is a commonly-held opinion, but still just that... opinion. It's not the truth.

There are so many problems with moral relativism, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I don't want this post to turn into an essay, so I'll try to keep it short.

Again, if moral relativism is true, then there's no such thing as a true right or wrong. Morality would not even be meaningful in the context of a particular society, because the morality of any particular society would be their opinion only, as opposed to something that is objectively true. No particular society could have a morality that is truly better than any other society.

Let's take a look at that. So let's say there are two societies. Society A believes in murder, cannibalism, enslaving and violently abusing animals, and raping women. Society B believes in protecting the innocent, peace, kindness, and treating others fairly. By relativist logic, Society A is morally right, simply because they believe they are morally right. AND, by relativist logic, Society A is not worse than Society B....it cannot be, if there is no true morality.

Not only that, but you can't even criticize Society A, or try to get them to stop what they're doing, because according to moral relativism, they are just as right as any other society.

So what that boils down to is that actions such as rape, murder, theft, violent assault, animal abuse, child abuse and torture are not truly wrong. Again, because there is no such thing as an objectively true morality, if moral relativism is true.

Do you really believe that? I don't think you do.




The Tao is wrong. They are definitely not one. But the Tao is partially correct. Evil cannot exist without good. Because for something to be "evil" there needs to be something fixed to measure it by... there needs to be an objectively true good. So, the existence of evil in this world is actually evidence that there is a true good.

That said, I believe that good can exist without evil. Goodness is a real thing, whereas evil is the absence or opposition of good. Evil is not something that exists in and of itself.




Respectfully, that's incorrect. There is an objective standard for good and evil. But you are right when you say there would have to be an authority that transcends humanity. There is. That authority is the Creator. God.

ETA: Not all atheists believe in moral relativism. Even some of them have eventually realized that the idea of moral relativism is illogical and problematic. So there are certain well-known atheists who state that morality is objective, but of course they don't attribute it to God. I've seen debates on this topic between atheists and theists, and I have never once seen an atheist that even comes close to making a valid, compelling case for objective morality apart from God.

Who are you to say if it's truth or not?

And of course we can criticize but really what good does it do? We aren't going to change the minds of Iranians and have them abolish their theocracy are we?

And I'll ask again what gives you the authority to proclaim that a school of philosophy like Taoism is wrong when you refuse to even consider the possibility that your religion got it wrong?

OK so why don't you succinctly give this objective definition of what is good or evil?

And I'm, not an atheist as I have said repeatedly in many threads.

Just the fact that people have differing opinions on what is right or wrong makes the terms subjective. The fact that societal mores have changed and changed drastically as societies have evolved is proof that morals are relative.

 

[Blues Man]

Nope. God created us with free will. What we do with that free will is up to us. Again, God didn't create our fallen nature. We inherited that from the first humans who did wrong. But even if that hadn't happened, we would still have ended up in the same situation we're in today, because unfortunately almost all people misuse their free will, and have to learn things the hard way.

Besides, you have been ignoring the other important part of this that I mentioned before. We also have a conscience. So even though we have a fallen human nature, that is no excuse, because our conscience tell us when we're doing something wrong.



First of all, you don't know what the future holds. I was a nonbeliever for many years of my life... and I was similar to you in the sense that I never ever ever thought I would become "religious." (Now I understand it's not about religion, it's about the reality that there is a God, and we were made to be in a loving relationship with our Creator.)

So you can't say for sure how you're going to change or what your life is going to look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

Secondly, just because God knows the future does not mean that we don't have free will. We still do. And as I was just telling my other half recently... God respects and honors free will. God is 'libertarian' in that sense, He doesn't force Himself on people, of course that would be wrong. So you have a choice. I can't tell you what to do, but I can tell you this. Coming to Christ was without a doubt the best decision I ever made, and my only regret was not doing it years sooner. I can't even begin to express how much better my life is now, as a born again believer and child of God.




Nope, that is simply incorrect. What God allows and what God wants are two different things. God knows what we're going to choose, but that doesn't mean we didn't have a choice. We have free will, every day you can choose what you're going to do. But I will say this.... people should be careful with their choices. Because although everyone has free will up until the day they die.... ultimately it can be more difficult to make the right choices if one lives a lifetime of making bad choices. That reminds me of a quote:

"Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny."

I'm pretty sure I won't be worshipping any gods even if an entire pantheon appears to introduce themselves.

And I disagree if your god made you so that he will know everything you will ever do then you have no choice because that is how you were made.

There are way too many contradictions in all religions because all religions were invented by humans. So I can invent my own religion and it's no less right or wrong than any others because what matters in the end is not if you kneel before a god but that you treated your fellow humans with decency respect and care. I don't need to worship any gods to do that.

 

[buttercup]

Who are you to say if it's truth or not?

Not so fast. You did the same thing. You made declarative statements, for example: "Good and evil are human concepts" and "There is no objective standard for good and evil".... as opposed to saying "I believe good and evil are human concepts" or "I believe there is no objective standard for good and evil."

Like you, I didn't preface some of my statements with "I believe" because I figure it should go without saying that everything we state on threads like this is what we believe. However, there are 2 different types of truth. There is objective truth and there is subjective truth. If I make a claim about something that is objective in nature (either true or false) then I'll phrase it differently than I would about something that is subjective in nature.

For example, I wouldn't state that a particular ice cream flavor is the best of all, because the topic of ice cream flavors is subjective in nature.... so I'd say "my favorite ice cream is salted caramel cluster" or whatever.

But when it comes to topics that are objective as opposed to subjective, obviously I'm not going to say "It is my opinion that 2+2=4." I'm just going to say "2+2=4."

And although it may be controversial, when it comes to the topic of morality, I have no doubt that morality is NOT subjective, like which flavor ice cream is best, so I'm going to phrase it in the same way I would about other topics that are in the category of objective truth.

I hope all that made sense.

And of course we can criticize but really what good does it do? We aren't going to change the minds of Iranians and have them abolish their theocracy are we?

I disagree. People do change their views, it happens all the time. For example, I used to be prochoice, but now I'm pro-life. If I hadn't heard people speaking about that topic, I might still hold the same view I held many years ago.

So I don't agree that criticizing injustice is pointless, in fact I think if we DON'T ever criticize injustice, corruption, and evil, then we are not much better than the people who do evil things. Would you disagree with that?

And I'll ask again what gives you the authority to proclaim that a school of philosophy like Taoism is wrong when you refuse to even consider the possibility that your religion got it wrong?

You're assuming that I haven't ever considered that possibility. Of course I have. Like I said, I was a non-Christian for many years, and I rejected all religion. And eventually, for a number of reasons, I came to the conclusion that there IS a truth, and that truth is a Person.

But also, I was going by basic logic. It is simply illogical to state that good and evil are one. (Which is what you said Taoism teaches, right?) That violates the law of non-contradiction, one of the most basic laws of logic.

OK so why don't you succinctly give this objective definition of what is good or evil?

And I'm, not an atheist as I have said repeatedly in many threads.

Just the fact that people have differing opinions on what is right or wrong makes the terms subjective. The fact that societal mores have changed and changed drastically as societies have evolved is proof that morals are relative.

I know you're not an atheist. I wasn't claiming that you were. I was just saying that even (some) nonbelievers believe in objective morality.

And no, again, differing opinions absolutely do not make something subjective. Some people believe the earth is flat. Most people believe it is a sphere. Does that difference of opinion make the shape of the earth subjective in nature? Of course not. There is an actual truth, regardless of what people believe.

I could give tons of other examples like that, but you get the idea. Differing opinions does not make something subjective in nature.

As for the definition of good and evil, we're already way off topic here, and I don't have much more time right now, so I'll have to give the very short Cliff notes version of my answer. I believe God is the ultimate truth / reality, and the concept of "good" is rooted in the character of God, which is love, kindness, mercy, justice, holiness and truth. THAT is the objective, unchanging, 'fixed' source and standard that everything else is measured against.

 

[ding]

You're not.

People do not just "know" right from wrong.
And "right " and "wrong" mean different things to different people

And you still haven't addressed the point.

 

[ding]

You haven't done that either

I disagree. That's why you keep coming back.

 

[Blues Man]

Not so fast. You did the same thing. You made declarative statements, for example: "Good and evil are human concepts" and "There is no objective standard for good and evil".... as opposed to saying "I believe good and evil are human concepts" or "I believe there is no objective standard for good and evil."

Like you, I didn't preface some of my statements with "I believe" because I figure it should go without saying that everything we state on threads like this is what we believe. However, there are 2 different types of truth. There is objective truth and there is subjective truth. If I make a claim about something that is objective in nature (either true or false) then I'll phrase it differently than I would about something that is subjective in nature.

For example, I wouldn't state that a particular ice cream flavor is the best of all, because the topic of ice cream flavors is subjective in nature.... so I'd say "my favorite ice cream is salted caramel cluster" or whatever.

But when it comes to topics that are objective as opposed to subjective, obviously I'm not going to say "It is my opinion that 2+2=4." I'm just going to say "2+2=4."

And although it may be controversial, when it comes to the topic of morality, I have no doubt that morality is NOT subjective, like which flavor ice cream is best, so I'm going to phrase it in the same way I would about other topics that are in the category of objective truth.

I hope all that made sense.




I disagree. People do change their views, it happens all the time. For example, I used to be prochoice, but now I'm pro-life. If I hadn't heard people speaking about that topic, I might still hold the same view I held many years ago.

So I don't agree that criticizing injustice is pointless, in fact I think if we DON'T ever criticize injustice, corruption, and evil, then we are not much better than the people who do evil things. Would you disagree with that?




You're assuming that I haven't ever considered that possibility. Of course I have. Like I said, I was a non-Christian for many years, and I rejected all religion. And eventually, for a number of reasons, I came to the conclusion that there IS a truth, and that truth is a Person.

But also, I was going by basic logic. It is simply illogical to state that good and evil are one. (Which is what you said Taoism teaches, right?) That violates the law of non-contradiction, one of the most basic laws of logic.




I know you're not an atheist. I wasn't claiming that you were. I was just saying that even (some) nonbelievers believe in objective morality.

And no, again, differing opinions absolutely do not make something subjective. Some people believe the earth is flat. Most people believe it is a sphere. Does that difference of opinion make the shape of the earth subjective in nature? Of course not. There is an actual truth, regardless of what people believe.

I could give tons of other examples like that, but you get the idea. Differing opinions does not make something subjective in nature.

As for the definition of good and evil, we're already way off topic here, and I don't have much more time right now, so I'll have to give the very short Cliff notes version of my answer. I believe God is the ultimate truth / reality, and the concept of "good" is rooted in the character of God, which is love, kindness, mercy, justice, holiness and truth. THAT is the objective, unchanging, 'fixed' source and standard that everything else is measured against.

Us criticizing other societies doesn't make them change their ways. That kind of change has to come from within the society itself. It's not quite the same as you changing your mind on one issue as it involves the entirety of the population of a society.

And the Tao states you cannot have one without the other so when you name the good you actually create the bad. They are but 2 sides of the same coin. There is no light without the dark, there is no silence without sound. These are not contradictions. We need these opposite forces in order to perceive nature.

Whether the earth is round or flat does not require some absolute authority to prove we can gather the evidence ourselves. What people have called good and evil has changed throughout history and it is still changing today. There has been a homogenization of societal morals to a degree but that's more due to the technological advances of communications and the ease of travel than it is to some supernatural authority

 

[Blues Man]

And you still haven't addressed the point.

Which one? We have touched on lots of points.