Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]




[center]
This aint a theological problem, it's a language problem
Part One[/center]

That just goes to show you that most people think that "objective" means "absolute" when in fact it doesn't.

________________


Just a side note:

I think it's fine if people want to define words in purely personal ways. They can be as confusing as they want to be. They can move the goal posts as often as they choose. It's up to the rest of us to catch up and keep them on track. Doesn't mean a thing to me what LABEL one chooses to describe an idea.. it's the idea that counts.

If he wants to equate "objective" with "absolute', then that's ok with me.

Now, he would have to defend the proposition that morality is absolute.
And I would probably just start by dropping "objective" right now, and focus on absolute. And I bet that you and I and some readers might have NO clue as to what he means by "absolute" anyway.

It's up to him to define his terms.
I'd start by asking him to do that.

Sticking with ONE definition ... we can ask him to do that, but it's OUR job to demand that he stays consistent during the debate.

let's keep 'em honest.
That's what Blastcat say.

End of side note.

___________________

[For_The_Kingdom]

'

It looks like you know how Hitler would think today, IF he was alive. What a remarkable talent you have!

I'm going to be skeptical of those abilities for now.

Call it a pretty damn good hunch.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's extremely important to your case that you define your terms well.
So, it's more than just "Fine", it's "Vital".

Apparently.

Do you know what I don't notice in that definition you accept? I don't notice any "God" in that definition. That's what I don't notice.

Morality: No "God" required.

That was just the simple, basic definition of it, sir. The definition isn't meant to give a full, detailed, philosophical definition regarding the origins and ontology of the term.

Thank you very much.

SMH.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by For_The_Kingdom]

People like you; would rather think "Look at how horrible God is treating those people", instead of thinking "Those people have the nerve to gripe against God after he went out of his way to save them from SLAVERY, and they dare set up a golden calf and worship it, in the face of the very God that saved you from slavery". Talk about a slap in the face!!

People like me ask why were the people enslaved in Egypt in the first place, if this God loves the Hebrews so much? Doesn't the narrative have Joseph having his brothers move into Egypt and then suddenly its a few hundred years later and now all of a sudden the Hebrews are enslaved? Genesis ends with the death of Joseph, with Exodus opening with the new Pharaoh just out of the blue, seemingly, deciding to enslave the Hebrews.
I'm curious about this because elsewhere, you talked about how God only punishes the Hebrews if they're disobedient. Well...where is the disobedience here?
If I am to believe the standard Christian narrative, then God wanted Joseph and his brothers in Egypt and given that he is all powerful...then their subsequent enslavement is entirely on him.
Also, you'd want to re-read Exodus anyway. Moses is sent by God not to ask for freedom for the Hebrews but asks merely that they be allowed to go into the wilderness for a few days to worship God at a feast.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by For_The_Kingdom]

Asking why God is good is like asking why is the #1 singular? God's goodness is part of the essence of his nature. It is a necessary part of who he is.

You're making the same mistake here as you did in our MOA thread. You declare certain things to be 'necessary' parts of what God is (so just like you declared God to necessarily exist) but give no justification for us other people on the other side to accept.

if you believe that objective moral values and duties exists, then such an existence can only be prevelent if there is a transcendent standard from mankind by which these standards are based on

Thing is...if one looks at the OT, we see all sorts of things being done, like drowning puppies, kittens and babies in a global flood, ordering sacrifices, letting a faithful and pious man be tormented simply to win a bet, etc.
Are these actions objective morality? For objective morality to mean something, it has to mean something that is moral irrespective of who is doing it or the circumstances. So should I go out and drown babies? Torment someone to win a bet?

and this transcendent standard must be a personal agent, as morality is based upon personality...namely, PERSONHOOD.

Congratulations. You've just described subjective morality.

Objective = Independent of the observer. Described in such a way that all observers agree.

Subjective = Dependent on the observer. Described in a way that is born in the contact of the thing with the observer's psyche.

So you've described God as being a person. Thus, God observes. Thus God's morality is subjective.
Not only that, but it seems to me to be relative too. We see commandments like "Thou Shalt Not Kill"...then we see stories where entire peoples and cities are commanded to be killed.

So if objective moral values exists, a transcendent personal entity is required. No getting around that.

As I've just demonstrated, the second you introduce a personal entity into the 'equation', then it's no longer objective morality, but subjective.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by For_The_Kingdom]

Well, that depends...if God and/or objective moral values exists, then "good" would mean anything that God desires or approves of.

And how do we tell for sure, in some objective way, what this God desires or approves of? Some hard core ISIS members might say to you that God desires and approves of them throwing gay people off of roof-tops. If you personally disagree with them, then what's happening is that you are arguing for your own subjective morality against theirs, and neither you or they can actually show for sure which of you (if either) is actually doing what God approves of.
You said earlier that Hitler would stand by his standards, just like DI is, and we're at a stalemate. Well...so are you in that situation, with the ISIS members, from what I can see. From where I'm standing FtK is saying "God desires X!" and the ISIS member is saying "God desires Y!"

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by For_The_Kingdom]

Sure, and to sum that up; "No one, even Biblical Theists, can fully understand the ways of God" No argument there. I agree with you.

So why are you arguing that God is good, necessarily good, if you don't fully understand God or his ways?
To me, saying "X person is good" is the same thing as handing that person a moral blank cheque. That person can then do anything at all and you will have practically disarmed yourself of any means to criticise them.
At that point, what is the difference between what you're doing and slavery? Slavery of the mind?
I am loath to grant anyone or anything a moral blank cheque. I don't want to end up in a situation where someone I call good ends up doing destructive or painful things to others, and all I can then say is "He's good".

[For_The_Kingdom]

So where is there any "stalemate"?

You are the one who is locked into the idea there there has to be absolute morality. Not me. So there's no stalemate at all. Morality is nothing more than a human invention. We decide what we think is moral or immoral.

Again, if absolute in this context isn't synonymous with objective, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

That just goes to show you that most people think that "objective" means "absolute" when in fact it doesn't.

So everyone else is wrong but you? Gotcha.

That's because these people aren't stopping to think about what they mean when they speak of "Objective Morality", they actually mean that there exist ABSOLUTE right and wrongs.

I guess your boy Sam Harris didn't "stop to think about it", then.

Have you actually READ the article? The author states right in the articles:

Concept of "objective morality" believes that moral concepts are absolute.

So there you go, he too holds that "objective morality" and "absolute morality" mean precisely the same thing. He's actually trying to argue that what ever is considered to be moral or immoral today must remain constant forever and that morality can't be changing over time. That's what he's trying to argue for.

And thats my point...if absolute morality and objective morality don't mean the same thing, what exactly is the difference between the two? I still don't have a definition as to what absolute morality means.

Exactly, and what is COMMONLY ACCEPTED is that objective morality = absolute morality. But that itself is a flawed ideal.

Still don't know what absolute morality means...

But that definition doesn't say anything about those distinctions being absolute or even objective for that matter. The definition you just gave would work for subjective morality.

You said "whether or not morality can be said to be "objective" depends entirely upon how you define morality"...so...I defined "morality".

Different people would make different "distinctions" between what they consider to be right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Right, then morality is based upon individual preference...so when a serial killer strangles 18 women, that was just his preference. Gotcha.

So that definition works just fine for subjective morality as well.

Sure would. But not objective.

Fair enough as long as you aren't thinking in terms of absolutes. In other words, if there is not God who claims to be the ultimate authority, and you have more than one GROUP, then those different GROUPS may very well disagree on what they consider to be right and wrong or good and bad.

Right!! And if you don't have that transcendent ultimate authority judge, who's morals/values isn't dependent upon social/biological conditions and/or evolution and the laws of nature...then absolutely EVERYTHING becomes subjective and not only that, but nothing essentially matters anyway.

So in other words, if a giant comet suddenly collided with the Earth and completely demolished it and the entire Earth was destroyed....did the Holocaust really matter? Did how I lived my life really mattered? Did it matter whether I lived my life as Adolf Hitler, or Mother Teresa?

I say no, it doesn't matter. So why don't I just live my life by doing whatever pleases me, since there is no moral accountability (on a cosmic scale), and once I die I will simply cease to exist.

Why don't I just be a serial killer, after all, there is nothing objectively wrong with such actions...that would be no different than a lion deciding "you know what, these hyenas are a thorn in my ass...so let me just go on a rampage and exterminate every single hyena, one by one".

Literally, no difference (on naturalism).

Because if a God can't "take credit" for being good then he has nothing to do with it.

He may not "take credit" for being good, but he "takes credit" for demanding the goodness of his subjects and it is based on his goodness that justice will eventually come.

Evidently something greater than God would be forcing God to be "good" whether he likes it or not.

Not at all. God is an expert at being himself, and goodness is himself.

You had even demanded that God must be good by "necessity". A God who has no choice but to be good can hardly 'take credit' for a character nature that he has no control over.

I fail to see the flaw here lol.

No, I'm saying that your God can't "take credit" for being good if you push that character trait onto him as a necessity. Especially in something like Christianity where "Free Will" is of such great importance. You are basically demanding that God has no "Free Will" when it comes to how he behaves. He has no choice but to always be good.

Fine with me. A God that can "do bad" if he pleased would be a God who can decide, "you know what, I should just torture Divine Insight for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I just feel the urge to torture someone".

I would rather have a God that "has no choice but to be good" than a God that can freely chose to do bad.

But hey, maybe thats just me.

That's RIGHT! Now you are beginning to understand how it works.

Right, and I also understand that based on your view, someone can break in your house, bind you, rape your wife in front of you...and no matter how much you disapprove of such actions, on your view, there is still nothing essentially "wrong" with what the guy is doing.

Well, that's what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to claim that there is a God who is the "Absolute Moral Authority". And yet ironically you have also claimed that God has no choice but to be this way, therefore there must be some even higher moral authority that forces your God to always be good.

See, and that is the point that I try to make, when I can. Even though theists/naturalists have a love/hate relationship...we share at least one thing in common...we both believe in the nature of necessity.

Theists: God is necessary
Naturalists: The universe (nature) is necessary

By "necessary" in this context, I simply mean cannot fail to exist. So if God is necessary in his existence, then he doesn't own his existence to any higher being, power, or entity.

So no, God can't be anything else but himself...a necessarily good being.

The difference here is that God wouldn't have the bulk of humanity backing him up.

I would.

What good is the "bulk of humanity's opinion" to a Supreme Being who rules the entire universe?

I don't need to go anywhere from there because you would first need to prove your claim. Thus far all I see is you repeating unverified accusations made by the religious doctrine that you support. Yet you act like as if those claims have been proven to be facts. That's a circular argument.

Well, I guess if objective moral values don't exist, and you admit that everything is subjective...then we just have to agree/disagree.

In other words, you are trying to use the claims of your religious dogma as evidence that your religious dogma is true. But you have no actual evidence that devout religious theists are all "sinners" that God has "problems with".

In fact, that very accusation is already based on your claim that your God actually exists.

Hey, you are the one that is claiming "the bulk of humanity is backing you up" as it relates to your disapproval of God's actions...well, if God doesn't exist, then what exactly is the bulk of humanity backing you with?

Your entire argument is based upon "God does not exist because he doesn't meet my standard of morality".

So then the question of "why SHOULD God meet your standard of morality?"...and not only that, but God could STILL exist DESPITE not meeting your standard of morality.

So your argument fails either way. That is why the problem of evil is such a failure, because it fallaciously appeals to emotions and the proponent of the argument has no foundation at which he/she bases such an argument.

So now you are claiming to have a God that you don't even understand.

Who in their right mind would say that they "understand God"?

Well, if I accept that you don't understand your own God then why should I even care what you might have to say about your God? According to you all you could be doing is GUESSING, because you've just confessed that you don't even understand your own God.

I know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know.

You've just proved yourself wrong with the article you linked to previously. In that article it was made clear that "Objective Morality must be Absolute".

If you agree with the article, then you are contradicting yourself because in post #44 you said that "well, first YOU need to understand that objective doesn't mean the same thing as Absolute."


Yet, it sounds like you are agreeing with the article that "Objective morality must be absolute".

SMH.

The article YOU linked to demands that Objective morality must be Absolute.

From the article: Concept of "objective morality" believes that moral concepts are absolute.

I agree with the article. The only reason the article was POSTED IN THE FIRST PLACE was because you spent the bulk of your entire post (#44) making the DISTINCTION between objective/absolute values!!!

It doesn't matter. If you claim that a God created nature and nature exhibits immoral behavior, then your God is the "Moral Agent" that created an immoral nature. So it's not a false equivalency at all. In fact, if humans were the only creatures who did bad things, then the religion might have some basis. But clearly that's not the case.

Ok, so if I walk under an apple tree and an apple fails on my head, the tree is immoral, right? So I guess humans are immoral for cutting down trees and using the wood for furniture, paper, etc?

Second, again, by calling anything immoral, you are making a judgement based upon a subjective standard which is basically just your own personal opinion which, on a cosmic scale, is about as useless as a no-mouth dog in a frisbee contest

We humans are the one who decided that we should create moral values and STOP behaving like the primates we descended from.

Ok..but what is one group of humans decided they didn't like another group and decided to wipe them out? Nothing objectively wrong there, is it?

So are you saying that "Objective Morality" is not absolute?

Objective morality is absolute. You were the one that said otherwise (post #44).

Are you saying that what's right or wrong today could change tomorrow?

Subjectively, yes. Objectively, no.

The article you linked to would not agree with you. He requires that "Objective" morality must be "Absolute".

You argued against the article in post #44.

So what? That's no reason for this God to torture them in this life with all manner of unnecessary suffering. Many of them die from horrific deaths, even starvation.

God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting their suffering..you (in general) have such a limited and finite existence, that you are simply not able to see through the eyes of God.

You don't see what he see, and you don't know what he knows. Reminds me of the movie "The Burning Bed". The wife set the husband's bed on fire while he slept. Sure, if you just played the tape from her setting the bed on fire, you would have thought she was the worse person in the world..

But that is because your perspective was limited, because if you watched the full tape, you would have found out that her husband was physically abusing her for over a decade.

Again, limited perspective. God sees the full picture from beginning to end, while you only see a small snippet, if that.

You God wouldn't be nearly as "good" as you claim if he allows this to happen to thousands of children.

Thanks for telling me your subjective opinion.

Also, if you believe that all children go to heaven why aren't you out there killing as many children as you can?

Because, I am not God.

If you allow them to become adults they could end up in hell.

That is all up for God to decide, not little bitty ole me. I am just one single pawn in this big game of Chess.

In fact, why should we even have any children in the first place? We should either kill them the minute they are born to guarantee they go to heaven, or not have them at all because if they end up in hell it will have been our fault for having created them in the first place.

We could do all of the things you just mentioned...or we could simply just sit back, grab a beer, watch the game, and let God do all of the work.

So as humans we should refuse to procreate at all.

Yet, God told man to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). SMH.

Jesus would be an evil demon if he only arrogantly saves humans who believe in him and casts the rest into a fiery furnace.
Hitler could behave that badly.

Subjective opinions, again?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 52 by For_The_Kingdom]





[center]Definition of Morality: No "God" required.
Part Two: Vague definition[/center]

It's extremely important to your case that you define your terms well.
So, it's more than just "Fine", it's "Vital".

Apparently.

Apparently?
Do you imagine that you case would be advanced by vaguely defined terms?

That was just the simple, basic definition of it, sir. The definition isn't meant to give a full, detailed, philosophical definition regarding the origins and ontology of the term.

So, are you saying that no god is needed for morals to exist of any kind?
I can't decipher your thoughts.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You're making the same mistake here as you did in our MOA thread. You declare certain things to be 'necessary' parts of what God is (so just like you declared God to necessarily exist) but give no justification for us other people on the other side to accept.

If it is possible for God to exist, then God must exist. Remember that one?

Thing is...if one looks at the OT, we see all sorts of things being done, like drowning puppies , kittens and babies in a global flood

Children are guaranteed eternal life..you see, the salvation of the children is already clinched...so instead of worrying about the children that are probably playing Ring around the Rosies right now in heaven..I would worry about my own salvation.

, ordering sacrifices

Human sacrifices were never permitted by God and if you are talking about animal sacrifices...again, unless you are a member of PETA and is a vegan or at the very least a vegetarian, then you need not talk about anything related to any harsh treatment of animals.

, letting a faithful and pious man be tormented simply to win a bet, etc.

Job didn't seem pissed off when he found out that God orchestrated his entire ordeal. So why are you more upset than Job?

Are these actions objective morality?

Yes.

For objective morality to mean something, it has to mean something that is moral irrespective of who is doing it or the circumstances.

And whether or not it is or it isn't, is something for God to determine..not finite, created human beings that can barely see past an hour into the future, must less the entire future of the world to the very end.

So should I go out and drown babies? Torment someone to win a bet?

Why not? If there are no objective moral values...then live your life as you see fit. Once the universe dies, nothing that happened on Earth will matter anyway. So yeah, go for it.

Congratulations. You've just described subjective morality.

Objective = Independent of the observer. Described in such a way that all observers agree.

Subjective = Dependent on the observer. Described in a way that is born in the contact of the thing with the observer's psyche.

So you've described God as being a person. Thus, God observes. Thus God's morality is subjective.

Sounds like a scientific definition of subjective/objective. That is not how it is defined in philosophical circles as it relates to morality. I will wait for you to do another Google search of the terms, but this time, put "objective/subjective morality" in the search bar.

Not only that, but it seems to me to be relative too. We see commandments like "Thou Shalt Not Kill"...then we see stories where entire peoples and cities are commanded to be killed.

God is the judge...jury...and executioner. There is a difference murdering, and "killing"...you do know that the difference depends on context, right?

Or are you just conveniently taking things at face value and you think the Bible authors were foolish/naive enough to contradict themselves within mere paragraphs of each other?

As I've just demonstrated, the second you introduce a personal entity into the 'equation', then it's no longer objective morality, but subjective.

Do a little more research, sir.