Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?

[Greatest I am]

I usually enjoy learning something when I lose a debate.

You seem to think you won yet I have learned nothing.

Oh well.

I think we agree though that morals are subjective.

The way I see things is that we are each our own moral guides.

My first moral tenet is not self-centered as is about 70 % of the world population, so it seems that we are more moral than your self centered God.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

I usually enjoy learning something when I lose a debate.

You seem to think you won yet I have learned nothing.

My apologies. I don't think I've won, per se. What I think has happened is that you just haven't demonstrated your point. I'm not trying to talk you out of your belief (which is probably where the "learned nothing" comes from). I respect that you believe such, even if I disagree (though mostly because I think God commanded none of that). All I was trying to do was push back on the "demonstrably" piece. If you still believe God's morals as satanic, so be it. They're just not "demonstrably" so. Or so I hold.

Does that help?

Oh well.

Sorry again.

I think we agree though that morals are subjective.

No, no. I think morals are certainly objective. I do not, however, think humans always get those morals right, so there's no "oh hey, he said he's a moral person. I have to believe him." I'm always a bit skeptical.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]I usually enjoy learning something when I lose a debate.

You seem to think you won yet I have learned nothing.

My apologies. I don't think I've won, per se. What I think has happened is that you just haven't demonstrated your point. I'm not trying to talk you out of your belief (which is probably where the "learned nothing" comes from). I respect that you believe such, even if I disagree (though mostly because I think God commanded none of that). All I was trying to do was push back on the "demonstrably" piece. If you still believe God's morals as satanic, so be it. They're just not "demonstrably" so. Or so I hold.

Does that help?

Oh well.

Sorry again.

I found a decent argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyFM0_AhIYA

I think we agree though that morals are subjective.

No, no. I think morals are certainly objective. I do not, however, think humans always get those morals right, so there's no "oh hey, he said he's a moral person. I have to believe him." I'm always a bit skeptical. [/quote]

Apologies.
I thought your comment above about atheists and objective morality was saying you though morals to be subjective.

Is this link speaking of the types of issues you call objective morality?

If so, what did you think of the reply?

If not please give a couple of examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4w_8Z8 ... re=related

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

No. And I think Dawkins is being tendentious here. He could say "not killing people," "feeding the poor," "not coveting another's belongings," "doing to others as you would do yourself." I this video is an excellent example of the atheist use of strawmen. There are certainly a lot of things religionists have gotten wrong in the past, but they've gotten a lot right. He does make a fair point about there being some pretty reprehensible stuff in the Bible, but the assumption that this is necessarily what God intended doesn't follow I think. God might well be up there going "God (!) dammit! That is NOT what I meant, you morons!"

As for the question that was asked (notice he dodged it), atheists still can't provide support for objective moral standards. They can say (as Dawkins does), "we have come a long way as a society, so we have good reason to hold to some of these things," but note that some of the morals we hold are thousands of years old and far predate Christianity.And how do we know they're objectively right? That we agree on them certainly doesn't settle this question. After all, if genocide is wrong just because we believe it is as a society, then Nazi society wasn't objectively wrong. Personally, I'd rather say "No, genocide is wrong, not matter what society says."

Hopefully that makes sense?

[Greatest I am]

No. And I think Dawkins is being tendentious here. He could say "not killing people," "feeding the poor," "not coveting another's belongings," "doing to others as you would do yourself." I this video is an excellent example of the atheist use of strawmen. There are certainly a lot of things religionists have gotten wrong in the past, but they've gotten a lot right. He does make a fair point about there being some pretty reprehensible stuff in the Bible, but the assumption that this is necessarily what God intended doesn't follow I think. God might well be up there going "God (!) dammit! That is NOT what I meant, you morons!"

As for the question that was asked (notice he dodged it), atheists still can't provide support for objective moral standards. They can say (as Dawkins does), "we have come a long way as a society, so we have good reason to hold to some of these things," but note that some of the morals we hold are thousands of years old and far predate Christianity.And how do we know they're objectively right? That we agree on them certainly doesn't settle this question. After all, if genocide is wrong just because we believe it is as a society, then Nazi society wasn't objectively wrong. Personally, I'd rather say "No, genocide is wrong, not matter what society says."

Hopefully that makes sense?

I don't know. Some did.

Were the example you gave above examples of objective morality. Some seemed subjective.

Can I have a few examples of objective morality.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

Were the example you gave above examples of objective morality. Some seemed subjective.

Can I have a few examples of objective morality.

Well, I hold those to be objective morals, but if you want stronger ones:

Genocide is wrong
Oppressing others is wrong
Torture is wrong
Denying someone their freedom is wrong
Taking care of the weak is right
Protecting children is right
Fighting evil is right

And so on.

[David Handeye]

I suppose nothing as I do not believe in your version of Jesus. He was Rome's invention.

You suppose nothing? No, instead you have only suppositions of yours, like these ones you have written: «Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?»

And this other one: «Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.»

You do suppose. You do suppose, and badly, very badly. So, continue with your fantasies.

[Greatest I am]

I suppose nothing as I do not believe in your version of Jesus. He was Rome's invention.

You suppose nothing? No, instead you have only suppositions of yours, like these ones you have written: «Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?»

And this other one: «Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.»

You do suppose. You do suppose, and badly, very badly. So, continue with your fantasies.

You pick a part of an imaginary scenario to use against me. How droll.

Yet you recognized that it was a fantasy which make you a hypocrite. Or just too dumb to recognize it.

Did the answer to that scenario bug you to the point of incoherence because it went against the immoral Christian creed?

It must have as you ran from answering it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]Were the example you gave above examples of objective morality. Some seemed subjective.

Can I have a few examples of objective morality.

Well, I hold those to be objective morals, but if you want stronger ones:

Genocide is wrong

We try hard to use genocide on the germs and other microbes that kill us.

Oppressing others is wrong

Every law is permission and compulsion to discriminate against a sub group of society, murderers for instance, so oppressing others can be quite good.

Torture is wrong

If you had a man in custody, who you knew without a doubt had set a bomb that would kill thousands or even hundreds, and you, with torture, had time to extract that information and save the many, would you torture him?

I would and I would expect any jury to find my actions forgivable and justifiable.

Denying someone their freedom is wrong

Name dropping. Do not panic. Socrates and I do not believe in freedom. As he stated, who will make your shoes. Meaning that we are all dependent on others and that real freedom is not possible.

Taking care of the weak is right

We would have to define care as sometimes the best care is to kill.

Protecting children is right

Protecting is subjective. My ideas of protecting a child might be way different from yours.

Fighting evil is right

Not always. My enemies enemy is my friend.

And so on.

[/quote]

Thanks for this.

I see most of what you put as subjective, not objective or absolute because, as you can see, there could be instances where following the morality you put would not be the best course of action.

This issue might want it's own thread some time.

Regards
DL

[David Handeye]

I suppose nothing as I do not believe in your version of Jesus. He was Rome's invention.

You suppose nothing? No, instead you have only suppositions of yours, like these ones you have written: «Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?»

And this other one: «Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.»

You do suppose. You do suppose, and badly, very badly. So, continue with your fantasies.

You pick a part of an imaginary scenario to use against me. How droll.

Yet you recognized that it was a fantasy which make you a hypocrite. Or just too dumb to recognize it.

Did the answer to that scenario bug you to the point of incoherence because it went against the immoral Christian creed?

It must have as you ran from answering it.

Regards
DL

You live in a world of your own. Nothing of that you write is correct, real and true. But, as you like.
Have a nice continuation.

[ReliStuPhD]

We try hard to use genocide on the germs and other microbes that kill us.

Genocide: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." So no, we don't.

Every law is permission and compulsion to discriminate against a sub group of society, murderers for instance, so oppressing others can be quite good.

Oppress: "keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority." So no, not really.

If you had a man in custody, who you knew without a doubt had set a bomb that would kill thousands or even hundreds, and you, with torture, had time to extract that information and save the many, would you torture him?

So, if you were God, and you knew that causing a child to suffer for 6 days and then killing him would lead to a better future rather than a worse, would you then do so? Seems to me you were quite adamant that torture was "satanic" just a few posts ago. Can't really have your moral cake and eat it to, now, can you?

I would and I would expect any jury to find my actions forgivable and justifiable.

See? Look! You and God have something in common!
But seriously, we know your scenario is impossible. We can never have such definitive knowledge. But even if we did, would we consider the torture right, or merely necessary? That is to say, sometimes we do what's wrong because there are no right choices?

Name dropping. Do not panic. Socrates and I do not believe in freedom. As he stated, who will make your shoes. Meaning that we are all dependent on others and that real freedom is not possible.

That's perfectly fine. At the same time, Socrates certainly did not sanction depriving people of what freedoms they had. Perhaps you do. I'm also not of the opinion that Socrates right on all points.

We would have to define care as sometimes the best care is to kill.

If that's care, sure. Like I said, taking care of the weak is right.

Protecting is subjective. My ideas of protecting a child might be way different from yours.

Protecting may be subjective, but you appear to agree that it's right to do. (And yes, it would be important to settle on some notion of what protecting children would look like. I'll bet you and I could come up with some pretty objective standards there too.)

Not always. My enemies enemy is my friend.

Military strategy hardly constitutes sound moral theory.

I see most of what you put as subjective, not objective or absolute because, as you can see, there could be instances where following the morality you put would not be the best course of action.

Well, by definition, doing what's "right" is best, no? It may not be what we want, but if you're just after some sort of utilitarian morality, well, that's self-refuting. By "objective," I do not mean that "everyone agrees." What I mean is that, when push comes to shove, people who are not deviant will stand by the precepts I've laid out rather than their opposites:

Genocide is right
Oppressing others is right
Torture is right
Denying someone their freedom is right
Taking care of the weak is wrong
Protecting children is wrong
Fighting evil is wrong

I'm willing to bet you're going to have to swallow very hard to say "I agree" to these 7 "anti-morals." So far, I've yet to meet someone who was not deviant that assented to any of those seven.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that these are simple versions. It's not too difficult to qualify them in such a manner that, for example, we can make running away from evil better than fighting it if running causes less harm. Then perhaps "Do the least harm possible" would be an objective moral.

[Greatest I am]

Seems we are talking past each other.

Perhaps next time we will get further.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

I think the disagreement comes with "objective." Maybe if we go with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," things will make more sense. I'd posit that the wrongness of genocide (for example) is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," ergo objective.

[Greatest I am]

I think the disagreement comes with "objective." Maybe if we go with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," things will make more sense. I'd posit that the wrongness of genocide (for example) is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," ergo objective.

If the Ferengy shielded their planet and sent it to destroy the earth, you would likely applaud the Klingons for genociding the Ferengy ass and destroying their planet to save ours.

Genocide, in that case is good and that is why morals are subjective and not objective.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

If the Ferengy shielded their planet and sent it to destroy the earth, you would likely applaud the Klingons for genociding the Ferengy ass and destroying their planet to save ours.

This is an excellent example of being "influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." That is, subjective. The very reason I would "likely applaud" the Klingons is that they prevented my genocide by causing that of another. Very much subjective.

Genocide, in that case is good and that is why morals are subjective and not objective.

Surely you can come up with a better rebuttal to my claim than an appeal to Star Trek. Are you telling me the only people you can think of who could commit genocide in a manner of which you would approve are... fictional? If that's the best you've got, you might as well concede.