2023 : Basis for morality thread

[Wootah]

viewtopic.php?p=1110735#p1110735

As was said earlier and before now "I really hope you stay a Christian..." where a poster or debator has sworn that without Jesus in their life they would run amok on an orgy of rapine and plunder.

Yes, I've used that one myself in the past when a theist implies that atheists have no morals or reasons to 'behave'. People who need a god to act morally should definitely remain theists. I have no desire to deconvert anyone. Deconversion should be something that is arrived at naturally. Like when you discover "Santa's" gifts under your parent's bed before Christmas.

Welcome to a new year of debating. What is the basis for morality?

Options raised in this thread:

1) opinion - fails on people having different opinions

2) genes - fails - If an insect gets taken over by a parasite and then that insect is more helpful we would not say it was being more moral. If a gene is making someone good we would not say they are moral. If a robot could be programmed to be good it would not be making choices and not be moral.

3) cooperation - fails on the logic of a group not being right just because there are more of them.

4) God - So, for me, if morality exists it has to have an objective basis. If it is objective and because it applies to only free-willed creatures then it has to be an opinion of a free-will creature who can impose their will objectively such that we can know their opinion on what is moral. That's where I am heading with morality coming from God.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is where you are wrong: it CAN be non arbitrary. If you read the definition I gave it says arbitrary is about and personal whim etc. The core of that is that it's based upon someone, if you want, as opposed to something.

If there is no god the law of gravity isn't arbitrary because it's not based on a will/opinion/vision etc.

It's a problem only if it's "ultimately God's personal whim" ( to quote your words ). It doesn't have to be that, cf atheist worldviews.

Not sure we disagree on anything here.

There is a perfectly valid vision in which there is something objectively moral, independent of God, to which God is subject to. It makes, like I said, God the messenger boy of the morality, it grants us the right to question His decisions ( as we have no way to test if God is really transmitting what morality is or outright lying).

Yes, and I think this is the right way to understand the God of the bible. We don't like to think this, but God is subject to something else. And being subject to God is in fact being subject to this other thing, that God serves in turn.

As I said in a much earlier post, I would use the word champion or figurehead instead of messenger. But messenger too.

I perfectly understand it bothers you because god is no longer perfect, just a very powerful and knowledgeable entity.

But everything makes much more sense that way and entirely eliminate the issue I raised.

That doesn't bother me. God is the figurehead of those who serve this external thing (i.e., life), but that doesn't mean God is perfect at it. Part of which is because we aren't perfect at it, to your earlier point on challenging what God says (again, God is just a figurehead...). God isn't perfect in other ways either like power or knowledge for the same reason, which is funny cause usually I'm the one trying to convince atheists of that. (They just don't want to believe that a theist can consistently say such a thing, nor do they tend to take such a notion seriously...)

So I agree everything makes much more sense once you think God in this way. But because of this, what we really need to do is set God aside and understand what it means to serve life. Or whether we should treat such a notion, as God would have it, as the basis of an objective morality. And if not that, what our basic moral principle should be...

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

I submit to you that when you wrote ' is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process' the very word 'process' is you popping a god into your beliefs.

At the minimum all a god is is the idealisation of a thing. So the idealisation of the perfect triangle allows us to draw better triangles.

How can you or anyone claim morality is evolving otherwise?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

I submit to you that when you wrote ' is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process' the very word 'process' is you popping a god into your beliefs.

At the minimum all a god is is the idealisation of a thing. So the idealisation of the perfect triangle allows us to draw better triangles.

How can you or anyone claim morality is evolving otherwise?

Chemical evolution and Biological evolution is evidenced by study and research. Social evolution is evidenced by history and modern studies. This 'god' is no more than research and evidence. Everything evolves because it is an ongoing process; you can't not have it. A god is not needed. Better triangles? In what way are our triangles better than those of the ancient Greeks or indeed Egyptians? Or do you mean with better materials or technology? What has that to do with a god?

What indeed does idealisation of a thing have to do with it? We may have an ideal image of a perfect machine. Does it all perfectly, super efficient, needs no power, never wears out. Doesn't mean there ever could be such a thing but we work towards it. No god needed. Otherwise we should (1) know the best we could do right now. No, the whole argument there really supports the idea that our evolution is more in our own hands and nobody elses'.

(1) cue - excuses as to why God could tell us these ideals but doesn't. Didn't even tell us in the Bible that illness is caused by bacteria, not by demons.

[1213]

... he is portrayed as fearing humans' knowledge of good and evil, he at times he repents of his own actions or is persuaded to change his mind, he hardens humans' hearts and actively causes their evil behaviour, ...

Sorry to interfere, but I think everyone should notice, He is portrayed by atheists like that, not by the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

... he is portrayed as fearing humans' knowledge of good and evil, he at times he repents of his own actions or is persuaded to change his mind, he hardens humans' hearts and actively causes their evil behaviour, ...

Sorry to interfere, but I think everyone should notice, He is portrayed by atheists like that, not by the Bible.

Yes, in the Bible. After destroying creation in a Flood he repents and swears that he will never do it again.

As to changing his mind, God is minded to destroy a city and is talked out of it by a very simple trick.

Genesis 18.23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

[Miles]

... he is portrayed as fearing humans' knowledge of good and evil, he at times he repents of his own actions or is persuaded to change his mind, he hardens humans' hearts and actively causes their evil behaviour, ...

Sorry to interfere, but I think everyone should notice, He is portrayed by atheists like that, not by the Bible.

Yes, in the Bible. After destroying creation in a Flood he repents and swears that he will never do it again.

As to changing his mind, God is minded to destroy a city and is talked out of it by a very simple trick.

Genesis 18.23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Kind of a pushover wouldn't you say, but then if one pays attention to their Bible it's quite apparent that god does have his shortcomings. He's gullible, makes mistakes, could use a science refresher, is sometimes morally deficient, contradicts himself from time to time, and even lies on occasion, all of which makes him less than perfect. But what the heck, he's only god.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

... he is portrayed as fearing humans' knowledge of good and evil, he at times he repents of his own actions or is persuaded to change his mind, he hardens humans' hearts and actively causes their evil behaviour, ...

Sorry to interfere, but I think everyone should notice, He is portrayed by atheists like that, not by the Bible.

Yes, in the Bible. After destroying creation in a Flood he repents and swears that he will never do it again.

As to changing his mind, God is minded to destroy a city and is talked out of it by a very simple trick.

Genesis 18.23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Kind of a pushover wouldn't you say, but then if one pays attention to their Bible it's quite apparent that god does have his shortcomings. He's gullible, makes mistakes, could use a science refresher, is sometimes morally deficient, contradicts himself from time to time, and even lies on occasion, all of which makes him less than perfect. But what the heck, he's only god.

.

which is to say, a mythical character invented by ancient writers who knew no better. And that's why we are non -believers: because it is unbelievable.

[1213]

Yes, in the Bible. After destroying creation in a Flood he repents and swears that he will never do it again.

As to changing his mind, God is minded to destroy a city and is talked out of it by a very simple trick.

Genesis 18.23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

[1213]

Yes, in the Bible. After destroying creation in a Flood he repents and swears that he will never do it again.

Please show the exact scripture so that we can look what it really says.

As to changing his mind, God is minded to destroy a city and is talked out of it by a very simple trick.

Genesis 18.23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”...

Nothing in the scriptures shows He changed his mind. God had in no point said that he will destroy righteous people.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #361]

I think you are making progress. But where you seem to be is in recognising that morals, like everything else, is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process. But somewhere along the way, you pop a god in there and recognising the imperfection (which this atheist at least has no problem with, even if a random off -the -street Christian might) simply asks 'why do we need a god in an evolutionary process at all?' This is a significant question because where there is no actual need, let alone no actual good evidence, the answer is that someone wants it to be there.

I submit to you that when you wrote ' is an evolutionary (chemical, biological and social) process' the very word 'process' is you popping a god into your beliefs.

At the minimum all a god is is the idealisation of a thing. So the idealisation of the perfect triangle allows us to draw better triangles.

How can you or anyone claim morality is evolving otherwise?

The fallacy of equivocation, it may be trivocation, in fact. Cooking is a technical process; healing is a biological process, fixing a car is a mechanical process. at the minimum doing it might be the elevation of a thing, and one could use the term 'idol' or 'god' if one becomes fixated on it. But that is not the same meaning as God. Idealisation is not that same thing as idolisation. At least (or maybe at best) it is a vague idea of how it could be wished to be - the best cooking ever, perfect return to health, a car that never goes wrong again. Those things don't exist thereby and don't amount to gods, in any case.

They may inspire or even clue us in to doing the thing better, but that is just a Process, not a god. in o.w I was talking the way the natural works, not the supernatural. trying to make a 'god' of that was a rhetorical trick that hurts your case, not mine.