Source of ethics, and morality

[defcon4]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

I suppose a good example of this would be God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

On the surface, this appears both evil and cruel. Here Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his most valued possession, his son.

Of course, what lies on the surface does not expose what is underneath.

During those ancient times child sacrifice was a common practice. In fact, it seemed to be one of the leading reasons God drove the Canaanites out of the Promised land as the Canaanites sacrificed their children to gods like Molech. Of course, they were not the only ones. Around the world child sacrifice was common place, like the Aztecs of South America and recently it was discovered that the Greeks also practiced this with worship of Zues. According to the Bible, God saw this as morally reprehensible and a cause for wiping out the Canaanites and all traces of their religion and culture.

So why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac if he so despised child sacrifice? I think, among other reasons, God was sending a message to ancient man. The message was, God does not accept child sacrifice of any kind because he hates it. That is why he stopped Abraham from killing his son and gave Abraham an animal to sacrifice in his stead.

And what of the genocides that were ordered? Mind you, I'm not talking about war - although he ordered several of those, too. I am referring to actual genocide - the killing of every man, woman, and child...even the livestock. If a political leader ordered that, we would call them monstrous, and the entire world would rise against them for their crime. So, how does God ordering that reconcile with a "just", and moral God?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Eradication has been done for millennia but for what reason, who knows? Nowadays we have instant news and it became a cause of knee jerk reaction.

 

[defcon4]

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

So, you have no evidence. You're just being arrogant. Gotcha.

 

[defcon4]

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

So, you have no evidence. You're just being arrogant. Gotcha.

I am not being arrogant dickhead. You need to read what I said above. I said there was no evidence. What a fucking moron you are.

 

[Czernobog]

If I understand what you're saying, correctly, you seem to be suggesting something akin to the cosmic consciousness of Buddhism. While, I appreciate your position, there is really no more evidence of that position than there is of an individual divinity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

So, you have no evidence. You're just being arrogant. Gotcha.

I am not being arrogant dickhead. You need to read what I said above. I said there was no evidence. What a fucking moron you are.

Ah. I apologise. I misunderstood what you wrote. I went back, and reread it. You'll forgive me, I am a man of reason. I do not believe in something, just because I want to. I need evidence to support my views. This is why I do not accept the existence of divinity. Because there is no evidence.

 

[hobelim]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

As social creatures, a sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and evil, not to mention empathy and selflessness, naturally developed when sharing and cooperating became a strategy for survival.

Unfortunately so did group think, compulsory conformity, and the need for a scapegoat to keep the rest of the herd in line through fear.

 

[Czernobog]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

As social creatures, a sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and evil, not to mention empathy and selflessness, naturally developed when sharing and cooperating became a strategy for survival.

Unfortunately so did group think, compulsory conformity, and the need for a scapegoat to keep the rest of the herd in line through fear.

I think you're describing two different things. The former explains the rise of morals, and ethics, while the latter is an acknowledgement that man inherently desires power, and what you describe was, and is, a method of gaining, and maintaining authority over others.

 

[hobelim]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

As social creatures, a sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and evil, not to mention empathy and selflessness, naturally developed when sharing and cooperating became a strategy for survival.

Unfortunately so did group think, compulsory conformity, and the need for a scapegoat to keep the rest of the herd in line through fear.

I think you're describing two different things. The former explains the rise of morals, and ethics, while the latter is an acknowledgement that man inherently desires power, and what you describe was, and is, a method of gaining, and maintaining authority over others.

I guess you are right. Two different things...

I suppose if I was trying to make a point it was that good and evil co-evolved as the species evolved.

It is also important to note that what is considered good or evil changes with the times for good or evil..


Some people say there is no holier thing than to get down on your knees before a lifeless cracker made by human hands, some people would say there is no greater evil.

I say that it is at best degrading to seek spiritual life from something that isn't even alive.

And I suppose it is a great evil to mislead others into confusion for the sole purpose of maintaining control over their lives.

That will never change.

 

[hobelim]

I appreciate your appreciation, however if you look for evidence you are shit out of luck.

What evidence?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

So, you have no evidence. You're just being arrogant. Gotcha.

I am not being arrogant dickhead. You need to read what I said above. I said there was no evidence. What a fucking moron you are.

Ah. I apologise. I misunderstood what you wrote. I went back, and reread it. You'll forgive me, I am a man of reason. I do not believe in something, just because I want to. I need evidence to support my views. This is why I do not accept the existence of divinity. Because there is no evidence.

Do you believe in higher thinking? Low life philosophy? Do you think your position about things is superior to many others?

Have you ever considered that the tales of angelic beings, sons of God, devils and demons, not to mention sheep and goats, talking serpents and donkeys, etc., as described in scripture, are just metaphors for types of people that reflect the heights and depths of human potential?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
since an atheist is as alive as a theist there must be a morality in simply being alive and with a Triumph of Good vs Evil either would be as likely to set their Spirit free as the other ... the correct purity is the key to the Everlasting.

.

 

[defcon4]

.
since an atheist is as alive as a theist there must be a morality in simply being alive and with a Triumph of Good vs Evil either would be as likely to set their Spirit free as the other ... the correct purity is the key to the Everlasting.

.

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

 

[HaShev]

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

I guess you weren't here for that class where I answered that puzzle.
Wickedness is subjective without defining our source & power of life to it's most finite source & thus also our purpose.
So we find Christians who think its wicked to blast on Jesus (who has a further source for creating his image) and they find it evil to point out the historical innacuracies and fallacious claims like you discussed in other posts. The people of reason and rational thinking can be of higher morals ethics and standards & do great deeds, but still seen as wicked in coming against the AFFILIATION PRIDE which set up a giant EGLOMANIAC who needs an ego feed more so then humanity served.
This same problem goes with Islam's focus on Mohammad as well. Blast either prophet and it's considered wicked, but do bad acts in either of these prophet's names and it's accepted as being part of the gang mentality=affiliation pride=wickedness and somehow accepted as good=subjective & flawed.
WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG , good or bad, in line or opposition is subjective and usually wrong when affiliation pride and a giant eglomaniac's inflated ego is seen as the discerning factor.
So you ask how do we know the difference from prideful claims and what is truly right or wrong. It's already defined in the name of the greatest focus in Humanity, the holy city of Shalem.

WE focus and gather and keep the city holy for a reason, it's to set it as a beacon, to recognize that everything we need is in that holy city's name. Like Cliff notes for the Bible is in the legend of how YeruShalem becomes the city of Shalom. The purpose in life is in the name, discerning right from wrong,good from evil is no longer subjective when you have that defined name.
Even the good cop bad cop story is in the name and legend of the holy city- like I said the ultimate cliff note to the book.
Shalem means stability, completeness, and wholeness.
Your purpose is to be stable as all you could and should be.
Mankinds purpose and direction is to progress to be complete and whole aka EVOLVE to be all we could and should be.
That simple!
All understanding of
right and wrong acts,
good vs evil, depend on discerning: "is it towards or opposing that direction/path?"
Is it Shalem?

 

[Boss]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

Why would an omnipotent entity need to have expectations?

Correct, I am not a Christian.

Look.... IF I am God, the Omnipotent Creator of All... whatever I create is going to satisfy my expectations because I created it. If there was some need it was intended to fill, I would have created it that way. But being God, I really don't have needs. See what I am saying? God is not humanistic. All these attributes religious people throw on God are because man cannot wrap his mind around God's omnipotence.

I personally think, only a relatively small number of humans have ever been able to fully understand God. I think people like Jesus and Gandhi would probably find much common understanding and would be BFFs to put it in modern vernacular. But what happens is, their followers can't comprehend God and so they build dogmatic religions around what they THINK they understand but don't. Or, maybe they DO understand to an extent, but they are still humans and fallible.

I guess you could say I believe in Spinoza's God. It is there, it definitely guides us on a spiritual course inclined toward light and away from dark. toward good and away from evil. It has no expectations or commands and doesn't hold us in judgment other than the consequences of not following our own spiritual paths.

 

[sealybobo]

So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God.

Here is the fallacy in your argument. God is omnipotent and has more supremacy than the human lawgiver you are exemplifying. There is nothing independent of God. You are attempting to apply human attributes to God who is superior. God is both the Morality and the giver of law.

Where there is a fundamental problem is not with God. It is with highly fallible man. Words are created like "good" and "moral" and "Righteous!" Humans apply their own perceptions of these words and what they mean. Morality is whatever man decides it's supposed to be at any given time. Good is what man convinces himself is good. Righteous is what men believe they have God's blessing in what is good.

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

I suppose a good example of this would be God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

On the surface, this appears both evil and cruel. Here Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his most valued possession, his son.

Of course, what lies on the surface does not expose what is underneath.

During those ancient times child sacrifice was a common practice. In fact, it seemed to be one of the leading reasons God drove the Canaanites out of the Promised land as the Canaanites sacrificed their children to gods like Molech. Of course, they were not the only ones. Around the world child sacrifice was common place, like the Aztecs of South America and recently it was discovered that the Greeks also practiced this with worship of Zues. According to the Bible, God saw this as morally reprehensible and a cause for wiping out the Canaanites and all traces of their religion and culture.

So why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac if he so despised child sacrifice? I think, among other reasons, God was sending a message to ancient man. The message was, God does not accept child sacrifice of any kind because he hates it. That is why he stopped Abraham from killing his son and gave Abraham an animal to sacrifice in his stead.

Did he stop approving of child sacrifice at some point or did he never approve?

If he never approved this is just one more thing humans made up. Add it to the list.

 

[sealybobo]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

Why would an omnipotent entity need to have expectations?

Correct, I am not a Christian.

Look.... IF I am God, the Omnipotent Creator of All... whatever I create is going to satisfy my expectations because I created it. If there was some need it was intended to fill, I would have created it that way. But being God, I really don't have needs. See what I am saying? God is not humanistic. All these attributes religious people throw on God are because man cannot wrap his mind around God's omnipotence.

I personally think, only a relatively small number of humans have ever been able to fully understand God. I think people like Jesus and Gandhi would probably find much common understanding and would be BFFs to put it in modern vernacular. But what happens is, their followers can't comprehend God and so they build dogmatic religions around what they THINK they understand but don't. Or, maybe they DO understand to an extent, but they are still humans and fallible.

I guess you could say I believe in Spinoza's God. It is there, it definitely guides us on a spiritual course inclined toward light and away from dark. toward good and away from evil. It has no expectations or commands and doesn't hold us in judgment other than the consequences of not following our own spiritual paths.

Only a small number understand God? Does that include you? Of course

 

[Brynmr]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

 

[Correll]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

 

[hobelim]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

Many people perceive biological death as a great evil even if though has always been a natural part of the life cycle.

Without death, a perceived evil, the earth could never have supported or sustained all of the people who ever have and will ever live on it.

 

[Boss]

Only a small number understand God? Does that include you? Of course

That's not what I said, you're leaving an important word out.

I don't fully understand God and I don't believe many people have.

 

[Brynmr]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

Many people perceive biological death as a great evil even if though has always been a natural part of the life cycle.

Without death, a perceived evil, the earth could never have supported or sustained all of the people who ever have and will ever live on it.

Then I would say someone's understanding of evil is.... zero.