Is this Christian claim arrogant ?
The Moral Lowdown
Moderator: Moderators
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: The Moral Lowdown
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]
It's just stating the obvious: Objective moral values and duty does not exist. It stopped short of saying anything along the lines of the godless are immoral.
It's just stating the obvious: Objective moral values and duty does not exist. It stopped short of saying anything along the lines of the godless are immoral.
-
bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 2171
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 983 times
- Been thanked: 657 times
Post #3
It is not so much arrogant as it is logically fallacious. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that objective moral values and duties don't exist. However, if they want to stand by that claim, then there is no justification for believing God exists because objective moral values and duties cannot be demonstrated to exist.
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 13491
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 498 times
- Been thanked: 511 times
Re: The Moral Lowdown
Post #4I dont think it is arrogant, especially because I dont know how you could determine objective moral without God.
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #5
[Replying to post 3 by bluegreenearth]
So the first few posts here are a concession that atheist morality is circumstantial and relativistic? Correct me if I am wrong.
Is there any atheist ethic that is:
a) universal
b) timeless
c) unchanging?
Or even any atheist ethical maxim that is shared with Theists?
If so, wouldn't that fit the criteria of "objective morality"?
So the first few posts here are a concession that atheist morality is circumstantial and relativistic? Correct me if I am wrong.
Is there any atheist ethic that is:
a) universal
b) timeless
c) unchanging?
Or even any atheist ethical maxim that is shared with Theists?
If so, wouldn't that fit the criteria of "objective morality"?
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #6
What Christians, indeed, Judaists and other theists FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE is that a God is not a source of morality.
God is just an 800 pound gorilla with an opinion about morality.
Various world leaders have demonstrated their morality throughout the ages, to extremes. Some good, some bad. Stalin comes to mind. President Polk's genocide as well. Claiming evil is good, does not make it good, even if you claim God says it.
Having might, does not make one morally right.
The correct statement is:
[center]
(Even) If there is a god, then objective morals do not exist.[/center]
God is just an 800 pound gorilla with an opinion about morality.
Various world leaders have demonstrated their morality throughout the ages, to extremes. Some good, some bad. Stalin comes to mind. President Polk's genocide as well. Claiming evil is good, does not make it good, even if you claim God says it.
Having might, does not make one morally right.
The correct statement is:
[center]
(Even) If there is a god, then objective morals do not exist.[/center]
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #7
I don't see arrogance in that statement. I see truth. It isn't any more arrogant to say that objective universal moral values exist and do so because of God than to say that I have a pail full of water and the reason it's full is because I filled it in my kitchen sink. Where's the arrogance in that?
Nor does it imply that those who don't believe in God can't do deeds that are morally right. They just don't recognize where that conscience comes from. Paul writes the following:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although, not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14,15).
Even those who insist that they believe morality is relative never live that way. They can't, because it isn't possible. If a pedophile kidnapped a three-year-old and brutalized that child, those who insist that everyone is free to choose what is morally right and wrong, whether others agree with it or not, will be outraged by this fact because, quite simply, it is NEVER right to do that to child, not in any culture in any time period. As soon as someone insists morality is relative, then they remove their right to criticize anybody for doing anything, however heinous.
Here's the thing: If we are all the results of random chance, then human beings are really no more important or special than a housefly or a snail. We can all be squashed with impunity because, with a naturalistic worldview to which many atheists subscribe, there is no ought. There's just is. And you can't get an ought from an is which is, of course, one of the things that makes naturalism not just a poor, but untenable lens through which to view the world.
Nor does it imply that those who don't believe in God can't do deeds that are morally right. They just don't recognize where that conscience comes from. Paul writes the following:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although, not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14,15).
Even those who insist that they believe morality is relative never live that way. They can't, because it isn't possible. If a pedophile kidnapped a three-year-old and brutalized that child, those who insist that everyone is free to choose what is morally right and wrong, whether others agree with it or not, will be outraged by this fact because, quite simply, it is NEVER right to do that to child, not in any culture in any time period. As soon as someone insists morality is relative, then they remove their right to criticize anybody for doing anything, however heinous.
Here's the thing: If we are all the results of random chance, then human beings are really no more important or special than a housefly or a snail. We can all be squashed with impunity because, with a naturalistic worldview to which many atheists subscribe, there is no ought. There's just is. And you can't get an ought from an is which is, of course, one of the things that makes naturalism not just a poor, but untenable lens through which to view the world.
Last edited by Overcomer on Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #8
Willum wrote:
I agree with you, Willum, and yet, without objective universal moral values, that's just what we're left with. Those with the most power get to make the rules and decide what they think is good or bad, right or wrong. That's the problem with relativism.Having might, does not make one morally right.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #9
[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]
To repeat, even with a god of some sort, you still are left with moral relativism.
Gods' opinion about morality DOES NOT constitute a absolute one.
To repeat, even with a god of some sort, you still are left with moral relativism.
Gods' opinion about morality DOES NOT constitute a absolute one.
-
Yahwehismywitness
- Scholar
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:26 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #10
What is moral?
Is it moral to manipulate people to give money weekly to make churches richer in fact millionaires?
Is is moral to shun people because they choose not Christian title following Rome?
Is it moral to look over the "needy poor" even with all the millions?
Is it moral to give them outdated food? Do you eat that?
Is it moral to manipulate people to give money weekly to make churches richer in fact millionaires?
Is is moral to shun people because they choose not Christian title following Rome?
Is it moral to look over the "needy poor" even with all the millions?
Is it moral to give them outdated food? Do you eat that?
