Christian Moral Argument

[POI]

It happens time and time again, in debates. The skeptic/atheist/doubter/criticizer/other mentions an apparent "atrocity" in the Bible, and more often than not, the Christian apologist will say (sooner or later).... "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'right' and 'wrong'?", as if this is some sort of 'checkmate'. I've experienced it myself, many times, especially when I first started to debate Christians. It's as if this is their bread-and-butter, go-to, knee-jerk response, in an attempt to avoid the obvious. Meaning, we both agree it is an 'atrocity.'

Well Christians, I have a thought experiment for you...

For Debate:

Is the moral argument a good one? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say it lends nothing to demonstrate a god. So why do you Christians use it in this fashion? Is it a deflection mechanism, as indicated above, or are their other implications involved?

Before you answer, consider this:

I'd reckon all of us have labelled someone 'rich' or 'poor'. What if a Christian came up to me and stated, "you are too rich and you need to do this/that with your money." And my response was, "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'rich' and 'poor'?".

The point being, I do not recall AN ECONOMIC STANDARD existing to distinguish between 'rich' and 'poor', and yet, we can get along and mange just fine. Hence, if it should turn out that no such standard exists for 'right' and 'wrong', can we still get along there too?.?.?.?.?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.Essentially it is saying that such judgements on human conditions (moral/immoral; rich/poor) are going to be subjective and relative and it is the best we can hope for. There is a socio -evolutionary basis we can appeal to as objective and that is the best we can do.

The debate really is whether religion, Bible or godfaith can provide a better moral basis than the humanist ethical codes. We then get into a lot of pot -ketle finger pointing and excuses like 'bad apples and not real Christians. In this respect the slavery argument (which they really don't like) is a problem (part of the bigger 'problem of Evil') in that religion does not provide a better moral basis and in fact we have progressed beyond that and Christianity either has to do reactionary denial or try to play catch - up and try to take the credit for it.

Like 'god gave us brains to decide those ethics'. But one can also say that evolutionary brain development gave it, not a god and we know about evolutionary brain development from evidence, but there is no good evidence for a god having anything to do with it, even if one existed.

[Purple Knight]

Hence, if it should turn out that no such standard exists for 'right' and 'wrong', can we still get along there too?.?.?.?.?

Perfectly as long as we all agree on the standard.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hence, if it should turn out that no such standard exists for 'right' and 'wrong', can we still get along there too?.?.?.?.?

Perfectly as long as we all agree on the standard.

it's a concensus thing.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Is the moral argument a good one? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say it lends nothing to demonstrate a god. So why do you Christians use it in this fashion? Is it a deflection mechanism, as indicated above, or are their other implications involved?
...

I'm reminded of Bananaman asking folks such as, "have you ever lied", then when the person says yes, bananaman begins to carry on as if that somehow proves christian moral superiority, or the god thereof. Nevermind they had machines to break your hands if you wrote something bad not too long ago.

In my travels, I've seen this argument presented most often by ignorant, self proud folks who can't even admit to the possibility of being in error. The kind who make a big scene about their holier'nthouness, while they vote for orange men who grab women by the...

Now, let's look at a different, subspecies of em...

There's Christians out there who don't beat you over the head with the Bible. You might never know they're even religious, much less which. They reach out to help those in need. They share a kind word. They give cash to needy folks. Cash, as in no judgement, but recognizing immediate need. (I'm certainly not a fashion icon, so I've had em come up and try to give me money for food, with only a slight, gentle nod to religion).They serve our communities, and they are the ones who show "superior Christian morality", only they don't feel the need to shout it through the treetops. They live it. These are the ones who can teach us "the good word", and dare I say it, the Truth(tm).

But they still got em some goofy beliefs

[Purple Knight]

I'm reminded of Bananaman asking folks such as, "have you ever lied", then when the person says yes, bananaman begins to carry on as if that somehow proves christian moral superiority, or the god thereof.

I got into a conversation like this with a real-life pamphlet hander-outer, but not a JW. I think they were Methodists; they were trying to get members for their specific church.

I simply said I never wanted to lie, and that's the truth. Most of the time I keep my mouth shut because it's the only way I can squeak by this double standard that I can never say anything nasty, nevermind what's true, but lying, omg that's so wrong. This isn't just Christians everyone believes both of these things.

When I lie is when someone more moral than I am, insists upon it, or when I have to do so, to get along in society. Other people make me lie. Any time anyone is accused of any motive other than a pristine one, it's a conspiracy theory and dangerous. Any time anyone verifiably does something nasty, simply stating they did it, is considered lying or hateful. I didn't make this system and I would abolish it if I could, but I have to live in it.

This is not a case of lying to do the right thing. And most people argue that you can lie to do the right thing, such as it being Nazi Germany and there being Jews in your attic and you tell them, no there are not Jews in my attic.

This is more like there being Jews in my attic (which I can't control; they hid there on their own), me telling the government so, and having not only the evil government but also and every last citizen whether they believe in Nazism or not come and lynch me for telling the truth. I'm not a masochist. If everybody requires a lie and that's the only thing that's going to make everybody happy, so be it. Most people believe you don't have to tell the truth about the Jews in the attic. I believe that if even the soldier asking after them would castigate you for telling the truth, then you certainly do not.

If I can get along without lying I will. But I can't. And that's not on me.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah well, Ray Comfort is not using a fair argument but an effective one. It is a hard sell method that backs people into a corner so they either go denial (their right) or give in. But that might save them

"I guess you're right and only Jesus could save me from the punishment i deserve for all these sins...but I just can't believe it. Sorry; I cannot make myself believe that what you're telling me is true." Which in fact is the bottom line of the whole debate.

Cue Pascal's wager, but People will simply have to learn the refutation of that. Which is why we are here,talking about what we don't believe, anyway.

[JoeyKnothead]

If I can get along without lying I will. But I can't. And that's not on me.

Not unlike, "I drink to make you more interesting. "

The rhetorical you, of course

[JoeyKnothead]

Ah well, Ray Comfort is not using a fair argument but an effective one. It is a hard sell method that backs people into a corner so they either go denial (their right) or give in. But that might save them

"I guess you're right and only Jesus could save me from the punishment i deserve for all these sins...but I just can't believe it. Sorry; I cannot make myself believe that what you're telling me is true." Which in fact is the bottom line of the whole debate.

Cue Pascal's wager, but People will simply have to learn the refutation of that. Which is why we are here,talking about what we don't believe, anyway.

What's funny is that after much ridicule Bananaman said he was just joking. Lomfpoc

[Purple Knight]

If I can get along without lying I will. But I can't. And that's not on me.

Not unlike, "I drink to make you more interesting. "

It is, I admit that. It's quite similar. It would be perfectly analogous if people gave him (the drinker) flak for not drinking.

I would actually tell the truth in the Jews-in-the-attic scenario. Even if I would suffer some consequences, I would. But at the point that the soldier asking doesn't even want the truth himself... I have given up. It's not about consequences to me, it's about the fact that all I'm doing at that point is hurting everyone involved, including me.