What is the purpose of God?

[Immanuel Can]

Each person decides their own morals and ethics based no their experiences, their environment, character and so on.

This is mere solipsism, not morality. If your standards apply only to you, then they can't be used to convince another person you are a "good" person, if you are, or to convict a "bad" one if you find one.

In fact, the whole field of Ethics is about the duties that only appear when there are at least two people (and almost always more) involved in a situation: that is, the function of Ethics is to produce agreement and inform social and cultural relations, not to generate solipsistic self-satisfaction. After all, who cares whether or not I want to regard myself as "good'? That just makes me a prig if I can finish no reasons to induce anyone else to agree with my claim.

"survival of the species" is one of the values that figure in my judgement. It is not an absolute. There are no absolute.

Absolutely not? Or are you only relatively sure of that claim?

we have to settle whether or not you think things like paedophelia are wrong; and if you do, why.

You are asking the wrong question.

A pedophile will say pedophilia is right. You will say pedophilia is wrong. He will say you are wrong.

You are wrong. He is wrong. Who is right?

I am, because the character of God is contrary to it, and I'm agreeing with God. What are your own grounds for calling it bad? You say you have none. On that, we agree. You've painted yourself as amoral...not immoral, but amoral...having no ability to draw on any ethical reasoning at all. You have no standards to which you can refer, you say...so you're simply out of the moral 'game,' by your own testimony -- if what you say is true (which I think it is probably not, given your value-laden language earlier).

Why do you think so much killing goes on in the name of religion?

Actually, very little does or has. There has been some, it's true: the Muslims are responsible for half of it, statistically. But it's only 7% of the war-deaths in all of history -- and that includes the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the polytheists, the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Anglicans and everybody else in one category -- a total of 3.5%, according to the (secular) Encyclopaedia of Wars. Many religions, such as the Mennonites and the Anabaptists, have started no wars and killed nobody in God's name. So you've just got your facts wrong there.

Anyway, as you rightly point out, you don't think killing or paedophelia is wrong. So all you can be accusing "religious" people of being is inconsistent. So now maybe you can explain to me why you believe it's "wrong" for people to be inconsistent. Is there a moral precept against it? Is it written somewhere, "Thou shalt not be a hypocrite?"

I think it is, but what do you think?

[sthitapragya]

Each person decides their own morals and ethics based no their experiences, their environment, character and so on.

This is mere solipsism, not morality. If your standards apply only to you, then they can't be used to convince another person you are a "good" person, if you are, or to convict a "bad" one if you find one.

And why is it important to convince another person that you are a good person? And why should you, personally, convict a bad one? It is not your job. We have the law for that.

In fact, the whole field of Ethics is about the duties that only appear when there are at least two people (and almost always more) involved in a situation: that is, the function of Ethics is to produce agreement and inform social and cultural relations, not to generate solipsistic self-satisfaction. After all, who cares whether or not I want to regard myself as "good'? That just makes me a prig if I can finish no reasons to induce anyone else to agree with my claim.

Well, I am not really arguing with you about the field of ethics, am I? I am in the business of doing things for my own satisfaction, while taking care to keep up a certain image in society by being a lawful, and (in their eyes) conscientious citizen. And honestly, I see no reason to induce anyone to else to agree with my claim. I would be a prig if I made declarations that my belief was right and his was wrong. I don't do that. So there is no reason for anyone to think I am a prig. I sit on judgement on ME. I don't sit on judgement on others.

"survival of the species" is one of the values that figure in my judgement. It is not an absolute. There are no absolute.

Absolutely not? Or are you only relatively sure of that claim?

I am absolutely sure that there are no absolutes. Why do you think there is the phrase, " every man has a price?"

You are asking the wrong question.

A pedophile will say pedophilia is right. You will say pedophilia is wrong. He will say you are wrong.

You are wrong. He is wrong. Who is right?

I am, because the character of God is contrary to it, and I'm agreeing with God. What are your own grounds for calling it bad? You say you have none. On that, we agree. You've painted yourself as amoral...not immoral, but amoral...having no ability to draw on any ethical reasoning at all. You have no standards to which you can refer, you say...so you're simply out of the moral 'game,' by your own testimony -- if what you say is true (which I think it is probably not, given your value-laden language earlier).

Okay. But now we come to the question, which God do you believe in? From the sounds of it you believe in the Christian God. In which case, you are not allowed to judge. At all. You have to leave all judgement to God. Have faith in Him.

And again you make the assumption that only God is capable of giving you the ability to draw any ethical standards for yourself. I have the ability to reason ethically. I use it to define what I should or should not do. I am a man who keeps my word. Always. There is no rationale for it. I just do it because it is my identity. I don't need God to tell me that I should do it. You seem to assume that only a belief in God can give you ethics. That is not really the case. We atheists can be good human beings too. We are not diseased degenerates.

Again, You do not seem to be reading what I write. I said before that every one makes their own ethics and morals depending upon their upbringing, environment , character etc. I have made my own. Some might agree with you . Some might not. I suspect from the way you write, we probably have very similar ethics. You say you derived them from your belief in God. I say you derived them yourself and credited it to your belief in God.

Anyway, as you rightly point out, you don't think killing or paedophelia is wrong. So all you can be accusing "religious" people of being is inconsistent. So now maybe you can explain to me why you believe it's "wrong" for people to be inconsistent.

Again, you don't read what I write and I am getting a little disappointed now. Either you are deliberately ignoring what I write or you are simply not reading it. I refuse to believe that you do not understand me because you come across as a highly intelligent man. So I wonder why you are doing this.

I will again repeat. I think killing and pedophilia are harmful to the person being killed and to children respectively and should be prevented. I, however, REFUSE TO SIT ON JUDGEMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT I FOR REASONS OF MY OWN AGREE WITH THE BIBLE IN THIS CASE. NOT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GOD BUT BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF THIS WORLD PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY PEOPLE SITTING ON JUDGEMENT OF OTHERS AND ALSO BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE I AM SO PERFECT THAT I CAN DO NO WRONG AND THEREFORE CAN SIT ON JUDGEMENT ON OTHERS, WHICH MORE OR LESS TRANSLATES TO "LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED CAST THE FIRST STONE'.

The capitals are so that hopefully this time you will get it. It is not anyone's business to judge other people. We are imperfect and to survive and thrive in this world, it is better to judge ourselves so that we can make ourselves better, instead of focusing our attention on others. That is why I refuse to label pedophilia or killing as right or wrong. I know that I won't do it. I know that both should be prevented by reasonable means. Hopefully you will not accuse me of supporting either again, otherwise this conversation will turn ugly.

I am not accusing any religious person of being inconsistent. That is a false accusation and I take issue with it. And I will remind you that you said that you want a civil discussion. That was your word and I took it as such. So why are you doing these things?

I really don't understand this. Why would I think it is "wrong" to be inconsistent? Are you paying any attention to what I write? I think by now you would have at least from my writing got some idea of the kinds of things I stand for. I have an idea of things you stand for. Is this what you think of me after all the discussions we have had? Do you really underestimate me that much?

Is there a moral precept against it? Is it written somewhere, "Thou shalt not be a hypocrite?"

I think it is, but what do you think?

Is this your idea of a civil discussion? Are you trying to goad me into saying something? What is the point of this, I really do not understand. I am a little disappointed with the turn this supposedly civil conversation is taking. I hope you see that you are the one breaking your word here. This is insulting.

[Immanuel Can]

I will answer a question that has substance. I will not answer your made-up scenario of an imaginary ?man who may or may not have committed an unspecified ?crime that is allegedly approved-of by a culture with which i am unfamiliar.

Here you go. It's happening all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z834OxnOdIU

So it's real. But I'll bet that doesn't surprise you. Maybe you knew even that already. I don't blame you for not wanting to answer. But how fair is it to put a case to Theists that you cannot answer yourself?

If your particular paradigm of Ethics is an ethically informative view, we should be able to say whether this is right or wrong. After all, was not the case of paedophelia chosen by the original poster precisely for its' clarity as an ethics touchpoint? If so, your ethical system should have absolutely no problem specifying something about it -- unless (as seems to be the case) your view is actually completely ethically uninformative.

Come on...easy case here. And I've already answered what I believe about it, and why. Why refuse to return the favour?

Obviously. There is nothing real to answer.

Not so. And now you know it's not so.

I never said I was a social relativist; you did.

Yes. That's the correct label for what you self-described. If you're not familiar with the label, I don't insist on it. But it doesn't matter to me what label you choose...pick your own, if you please.

There are many rules and standards of behaviour that work and make sense in most or all social groups,

This is why I referred to you as a "social relativist": you're describing classical "social relativism." You base your view of morals on the activities of a social group or groups. That's what it means.

[Skip]

People do bad things. I don't like that.
What's your question?

[Immanuel Can]

We have the law for that.

The law takes ethics. Otherwise, how do you know you have a "right" law? The law in some countries has permitted slavery. Does that make slavery "right," just because the local law says it is?

I sit on judgement on ME. I don't sit on judgement on others. [/b]

You'll find that works if you want to be a bachelor hermit. The minute you try to live with another human being, in a family, a society or a nation, ethics are going to return as a concern.

I am absolutely sure that there are no absolutes.

If you're absolutely sure, then are you sure by wish or by reason? If by reason, show your reasoning, and maybe we can agree. But how can anyone "absolutely" assert anything, when, as you say, there are no absolutes?

Okay. But now we come to the question, which God do you believe in? From the sounds of it you believe in the Christian God. In which case, you are not allowed to judge. At all. You have to leave all judgement to God. Have faith in Him.

You don't read the Bible, if you think that. It lists some things we are not to judge, but actually contains twice as many instructions TO judge. We are not to judge motives, for example, but we are to judge both people's actions and character. We are not to judge the intrinsic worth of a person, but we are to judge our own behaviour, the teaching of the Bible itself, and the decisions of our spiritual community...the list goes on. There's no prohibition on judging, just conditions for doing it, and those for not doing it.

The idea that Christians "can't judge" is simply a secular myth.

I am a man who keeps my word. Always. There is no rationale for it. I just do it because it is my identity. I don't need God to tell me that I should do it. You seem to assume that only a belief in God can give you ethics. That is not really the case. We atheists can be good human beings too. We are not diseased degenerates.

Yes, Atheists CAN act as good people. Many do. I've got lots of Atheist friends, actually, and some of them are fine people. But what an Atheist can never say is why an Atheist MUST be good. Why can't he be a Hitler or a Stalin? There's nothing intrinsic to Atheism that gives him any guidance on that point. So if he's good, he's good arbitrarily; and he cannot prove he's being a good person. For he does not believe in the reality, the objectivity, of right and wrong.

I suspect from the way you write, we probably have very similar ethics. You say you derived them from your belief in God. I say you derived them yourself and credited it to your belief in God.

You say wrongly. I freely confess that before I knew God I was a very unhappy and selfish person. No matter how imperfect I may be now, any goodness I've ever got has been entirely due to that relationship. And if you knew me, you'd know that's the truth.

Anyway, as you rightly point out, you don't think killing or paedophelia is wrong. So all you can be accusing "religious" people of being is inconsistent. So now maybe you can explain to me why you believe it's "wrong" for people to be inconsistent.

I will again repeat. I think killing and pedophilia are harmful to the person being killed and to children respectively and should be prevented. I, however, REFUSE TO SIT ON JUDGEMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT I FOR REASONS OF MY OWN AGREE WITH THE BIBLE IN THIS CASE. NOT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GOD BUT BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF THIS WORLD PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY PEOPLE SITTING ON JUDGEMENT OF OTHERS AND ALSO BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE I AM SO PERFECT THAT I CAN DO NO WRONG AND THEREFORE CAN SIT ON JUDGEMENT ON OTHERS, WHICH MORE OR LESS TRANSLATES TO "LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED CAST THE FIRST STONE'.

Well, I'll quote you, so you know I'm listening...

Why "should" things which are "harmful" be prevented, according to your view? You "refuse to sit in judgment," so how can you say so?

Nietzsche says we should let the weak fend for themselves. Social Darwinists say it's actually good if they die. So "harm" is in the eye of the beholder there. Nietzsche and Rand say "harm" is limiting the great man through misguided pity and "slave morality," and Social Darwinists say "harm" to the race is not letting the weak, sick and disabled die as they should...

And why, since you "refuse to sit in judgment" should it be wrong to "cast the first stone"? That's a judgment, isn't it?

The capitals are so that hopefully this time you will get it. It is not anyone's business to judge other people.

No, I got that long ago. But do you mean "judging is wrong"? If so, you've just made an objective moral judgment in saying so. But if not, of what are you cautioning me?

Anyway, if there's a Judge, I promise you He's not me...

That is why I refuse to label pedophilia or killing as right or wrong. I know that I won't do it. I know that both should be prevented by reasonable means. Hopefully you will not accuse me of supporting either again, otherwise this conversation will turn ugly.

No, I wasn't accusing you of supporting paedophelia. I was pointing out that your view, if followed through consistently, would give you no grounds for condemning it. And you agree, it seems: you refuse to condemn it. So where is the slander in that?

But as for you, I would be astonished if you did support such a thing. And we needn't fight. That wouldn't be in your interest or mine. If you want, we can leave the discussion there. I'm not into forcing something you don't want. I thought we were simply talking.

I really don't understand this. Why would I think it is "wrong" to be inconsistent?

Well, I'm trying to figure out your initial indictment against Theists. And given that you refuse all moral standards but your private ones, I can't see what possible criticism of Theism you were trying to make. I want to see if I can respond to your criticism, but I can't find it. I look back, and you seem to be saying "paedophelia is bad," and "Christians are inconsistent for believing in a God that allows it." But it makes no sense, because you say that you don't believe that either paedophelia or rational inconsistency are even "bad," because NOTHING is bad.

Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing any logic in your original accusation. I'm trying hard to find it, but I can't. Your own belief system seems to undermine your own case.

Is there a moral precept against it? Is it written somewhere, "Thou shalt not be a hypocrite?"

I think it is, but what do you think?

Is this your idea of a civil discussion? Are you trying to goad me into saying something? What is the point of this, I really do not understand. I am a little disappointed with the turn this supposedly civil conversation is taking. I hope you see that you are the one breaking your word here. This is insulting.

No, no, I'm not calling you a "hypocrite". Certainly not. Please forgive the appearance of that...it was not in my thoughts. I'm trying to find out whatever it was that you were attempting to indict Theists of doing. I just can't find it.

Maybe I can just restate it simply: you seem to feel Theists are somehow being "bad." You seem to want them to be ashamed or to stop being Theists. How is that again? What is it you want to criticize? Is it their (alleged) approval of evil or their (alleged) inconsistency? Hypocrisy? What?

[Immanuel Can]

People do bad things. I don't like that.
What's your question?

My question is " Does their 'badness' derive only from the fact that you don't happen to like them, or from something objective?"

If it's just your personal taste, then you're saying they aren't actually "bad" for anyone else.

Then they'd only be "bad" if YOU did them.

[sthitapragya]

The law takes ethics. Otherwise, how do you know you have a "right" law? The law in some countries has permitted slavery. Does that make slavery "right," just because the local law says it is?

Well, the church thought it was all right for a long time, didn't it? They also thought Gay people should be imprisoned or killed ( I am not sure which). Was that what God taught them? That is not a valid argument. Was slavery "right" then? If so, why is it "wrong" now? Ethics are subjectively decided by the environment and character. If God taught them to us, they would survive the test of time and slavery would still be "right" and homosexuality would still be "wrong". But we see people changing with the times. All subjective. God has nothing to do with it.

You'll find that works if you want to be a bachelor hermit. The minute you try to live with another human being, in a family, a society or a nation, ethics are going to return as a concern.

Not really. I have a wife and two daughters. We get along fine. They love me mainly because of the fact that I don't judge them like other parents judge their kids. It works in business too. I have a very dedicated staff which is the envy of all my friends. They ask me how I do it. When I tell them, they don't believe me. Treat them with respect. Don't judge them and trust them.

If you're absolutely sure, then are you sure by wish or by reason? If by reason, show your reasoning, and maybe we can agree. But how can anyone "absolutely" assert anything, when, as you say, there are no absolutes?

Now you are just lawyering up. You know I meant it as a sort of word joke. But seriously, I have not seen any absolutes. Slavery, homosexuality, adultery being examples. If there were absolutes dictated by God or otherwise, they would stay eternally. Also, every human would have the same ethics. But we don't. If there are absolutes, why would people commit crimes at all?

You don't read the Bible, if you think that. It lists some things we are not to judge, but actually contains twice as many instructions TO judge. We are not to judge motives, for example, but we are to judge both people's actions and character. We are not to judge the intrinsic worth of a person, but we are to judge our own behaviour, the teaching of the Bible itself, and the decisions of our spiritual community...the list goes on. There's no prohibition on judging, just conditions for doing it, and those for not doing it.

The idea that Christians "can't judge" is simply a secular myth.

Well, I would like to see some passages or verses which tell humans to judge. I tried to look and didn't come across any. Could you send some links?
But anyway, if you are allowed to judge, and you choose to, that is again a subjective choice you can make. I find that not judging works better for me and my peace of mind.

Yes, Atheists CAN act as good people. Many do. I've got lots of Atheist friends, actually, and some of them are fine people. But what an Atheist can never say is why an Atheist MUST be good. Why can't he be a Hitler or a Stalin? There's nothing intrinsic to Atheism that gives him any guidance on that point. So if he's good, he's good arbitrarily; and he cannot prove he's being a good person. For he does not believe in the reality, the objectivity, of right and wrong.

Now don't you think that is unfair? You cannot understand how an atheist can be good and choose to believe it is arbitrary. But you cannot bring yourself to credit an atheist with reasoning what works for him and what doesn't. No one is good because they are good. They are good because they have figured out that it is beneficial to do so. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And you simply don't seem to understand that right and wrong are irrelevant. Good, bad and better are more appropriate to reality. Being decent, law abiding citizens, doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others, these are things that other people appreciate and respond to. They bring status in society. And that even an atheist understands and implements. He doesn't want to prove he is a good person. He just becomes a good person. No one asks you why you are a good person. The fact that you are one is enough for everyone. Whether he believes in the reality and objectivity of right an wrong is irrelevant. People respond to the goodness not the reason behind it. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

Well, I'll quote you, so you know I'm listening...

Why "should" things which are "harmful" be prevented, according to your view? You "refuse to sit in judgment," so how can you say so? /

When I say things which are harmful, it is things that are researched and documented and concluded with evidence presented. Pedophilia is documented and researched and proven to be harmful to children. So I am not sitting on judgement. The other side of the coin is, Gay marriages should be banned. No research, no documentation of how two consenting adults doing things in the privacy of their bedroom is harmful. Just some vague reasons like, abomination, a quote from some religion book, a claim that God said so. That is sitting in judgement. Just a claim, "It is wrong". I hope you see the difference. I cannot really explain better. Maybe if I get a day to think, I can be more lucid.

Nietzsche says we should let the weak fend for themselves. Social Darwinists say it's actually good if they die. So "harm" is in the eye of the beholder there. Nietzsche and Rand say "harm" is limiting the great man through misguided pity and "slave morality," and Social Darwinists say "harm" to the race is not letting the weak, sick and disabled die as they should...

Exactly the point I am trying to make. All opinions and ethics are subjective. Depending upon the environment and character of the person. How does anyone decide what is really right and wrong. One man's right is usually another man's wrong. If you could find one ethic which every human being in the world agrees on, I would consider it an absolute. But we both know that is not happening. Why is that?

And why, since you "refuse to sit in judgment" should it be wrong to "cast the first stone"? That's a judgment, isn't it?

I was hoping that you would not raise this point because I thought you would understand the context of it. However, you have again chosen to either not understand or deliberately misinterpret. I merely quoted from the bible. I didn't imply in anyway whatsoever that it was "wrong" to cast the first stone. You can cast however many you like. That is your choice. But the bible says that if you cast the first stone, better make sure you have never sinned. I simply said I agree with it. I think you understand exactly what I meant and are trying to trip me up by deliberately misinterpreting me. And that makes me believe that we are not discussing but debating and you aim to win. If that is the case, then I concede defeat here and now. You win I lose. If you want, I will proclaim it and say that there is right and wrong. I was wrong. God teaches us ethics. I just didn't know it. But is that what you want? Just say the word.

No, I got that long ago. But do you mean "judging is wrong"? If so, you've just made an objective moral judgment in saying so. But if not, of what are you cautioning me?

Anyway, if there's a Judge, I promise you He's not me...

Why won't you take my word for it when I say that for me there is no right and wrong? Specially in the sense you think?

No, I wasn't accusing you of supporting paedophelia. I was pointing out that your view, if followed through consistently, would give you no grounds for condemning it. And you agree, it seems: you refuse to condemn it. So where is the slander in that?

Why do you want me to condemn it? Is it your contention that my refusal to condemn it makes me a bad person or an immoral or unethical person? If so, that is your subjective opinion.

Well, I'm trying to figure out your initial indictment against Theists.

Okay, now you need to elaborate. What initial indictment are you talking about?

And given that you refuse all moral standards but your private ones, I can't see what possible criticism of Theism you were trying to make. I want to see if I can respond to your criticism, but I can't find it. I look back, and you seem to be saying "paedophelia is bad," and "Christians are inconsistent for believing in a God that allows it." But it makes no sense, because you say that you don't believe that either paedophelia or rational inconsistency are even "bad," because NOTHING is bad.

Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing any logic in your original accusation. I'm trying hard to find it, but I can't. Your own belief system seems to undermine your own case.

That is simply because you have taken this personally and misinterpreted everything I said. I have simply said that if God exists and evils like pedophilia exist, they are evil acts of God. I have not said a word against theists or Christianity. You can go back and check with a fine tooth and comb. I am a hindu by culture. It is not possible for me to disrespect any religion even though I am an atheist now. And I am not a redneck that I will club all theists under one umbrella. I might do it to goad someone insulting atheists but never in a civil discussion like the one we have had.

And if you feel that I am saying pedophilia is bad, then why don't you just accept that and move on? You must have a picture of the kind of person I am by my replies. Trust that.

No, no, I'm not calling you a "hypocrite". Certainly not. Please forgive the appearance of that...it was not in my thoughts. I'm trying to find out whatever it was that you were attempting to indict Theists of doing. I just can't find it.

Maybe I can just restate it simply: you seem to feel Theists are somehow being "bad." You seem to want them to be ashamed or to stop being Theists. How is that again? What is it you want to criticize? Is it their (alleged) approval of evil or their (alleged) inconsistency? Hypocrisy? What?

Again, you have simply misread the whole thing. I have not once called theists bad. It is just not in my mental make up. I have said a lot of nasty things about theists in other posts with other members but they have always been retaliatory, when the theist has insulted atheists in general. I don't mean half of what I said but I say them anyway just to get their goat up as revenge. But honestly, and take my word for this, I actually believe that belief or the absence of belief in God do not in any way contribute to the character of a human being. All human beings act according to their character. Theism or atheism have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

[Skip]

People do bad things. I don't like that.
What's your question?

My question is " Does their 'badness' derive only from the fact that you don't happen to like them, or from something objective?"

Neither. Behaviour that's detrimental to a social species gradually becomes generally disapproved among members of that species. When we invent language and begin to name and codify things, we arrive at the concept of morality or ethics or right and wrong or law or custom - which, later still, we subdivide into categories and refine. Different communities of humans make different legal systems to serve different ways of life. They then go on to invent supernatural beings to raise their code of ideal behaviour to divine law, which makes it a lot easier to enforce. As tribes grow numerous and travel widely, there is overlap among people and they learn about one another's codes - sometimes reacting with revulsion, sometimes with admiration. The growth and spread of international communication and trade facilitate a more global view now than we have ever had in the past.
The reason I 'happen' not to like such behaviour is several million years of social evolution. The same reason my view is shared by a majority (I hope) of civilized modern people. We now have sufficient consensus among humans about what behaviours are detrimental that we can formulate a UN charter of human rights - but not sufficient to implement such a general rule. Maybe someday.

[surreptitious57]

I am absolutely sure that there are no absolutes

How ironic then that this statement is an absolute

[surreptitious57]

But honestly and take my word for this I actually believe that belief or the absence of belief in God do not in any way contribute to the
character of a human being. All human beings act according to their character. Theism or atheism have nothing to do with it whatsoever

This is absolutely true for there is zero correlation between belief system and individual character. And so if the only thing one knows
about someone is that they are a theist or atheist one cannot then determine from that one fact alone how moral or immoral they are

[Immanuel Can]

Now you are just lawyering up. You know I meant it as a sort of word joke. But seriously, I have not seen any absolutes. Slavery, homosexuality, adultery being examples. If there were absolutes dictated by God or otherwise, they would stay eternally. Also, every human would have the same ethics. But we don't. If there are absolutes, why would people commit crimes at all?

Oh, I see...you're perhaps not familiar with the expression "ethical absolute." Can I clarify?

An "absolute" does not mean the thing in question "cannot be done": it means it should not be done, but can. "Absolute" refers there to being "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong," not "absolutely impossible."

So slavery is "absolutely immoral," but also quite possible. "Adultery" is absolutely immoral, but also quite possible....and so on.

Does that help?

Now, there's no reason, therefore, to say that if there were "absolutes" people would not commit crimes. It would just mean they were "bad" if they did. And there's no reason why all people would have the same understanding of an "absolute" morality -- some people would surely not know what the morality was. And, in fact, the right conclusion from the disagreement of many people, as Aristotle showed us, is not "therefore there can be no answer," but rather "some people may be right and others wrong," OR "there may be an answer that none of them is right about."

The first one's probably right, if moral absolutes exist, and certainly if God has told anyone what they are.

The idea that Christians "can't judge" is simply a secular myth.

Well, I would like to see some passages or verses which tell humans to judge. I tried to look and didn't come across any. Could you send some links?

Yep, gladly...Luke 12:57, John 7:24...I could give you a bunch more, but these two will do.

Yes, Atheists CAN act as good people. Many do. I've got lots of Atheist friends, actually, and some of them are fine people. But what an Atheist can never say is why an Atheist MUST be good. Why can't he be a Hitler or a Stalin? There's nothing intrinsic to Atheism that gives him any guidance on that point. So if he's good, he's good arbitrarily; and he cannot prove he's being a good person. For he does not believe in the reality, the objectivity, of right and wrong.

Now don't you think that is unfair? You cannot understand how an atheist can be good and choose to believe it is arbitrary.

No, not at all. If I'm wrong, then show me how Atheism rationalizes ANY moral precept, and I'll be happy to apologize. Just one. That's all I ask...one. Fair enough?

...you simply don't seem to understand that right and wrong are irrelevant.

Not so. I agree that Atheism treats them as irrelevant. I just don't agree that Atheism is true.

He just becomes a good person.

By what criteria? What qualifies a person as "good": maybe you can tell me that.

No one asks you why you are a good person. The fact that you are one is enough for everyone. Whether he believes in the reality and objectivity of right an wrong is irrelevant. People respond to the goodness not the reason behind it. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

Well, I'll quote you, so you know I'm listening...

Why "should" things which are "harmful" be prevented, according to your view? You "refuse to sit in judgment," so how can you say so? /

Why do you want me to condemn it? Is it your contention that my refusal to condemn it makes me a bad person or an immoral or unethical person? If so, that is your subjective opinion.

It would be, if it turns out not be God's opinion as well. But He said that anyone who did that sort of thing would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and being chucked into the sea. So I'm pretty sure I'm safe in condemning paedophelia.

Well, I'm trying to figure out your initial indictment against Theists.

Okay, now you need to elaborate. What initial indictment are you talking about?

I have to run...I'll finish this response when I can.

[sthitapragya]

I am absolutely sure that there are no absolutes

How ironic then that this statement is an absolute

I meant it I the same way as when I tell people, thank god I am an atheist.

[Skip]

I often mourn the death of humour.

[thedoc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

[sthitapragya]

An "absolute" does not mean the thing in question "cannot be done": it means it should not be done, but can. "Absolute" refers there to being "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong," not "absolutely impossible."

So slavery is "absolutely immoral," but also quite possible. "Adultery" is absolutely immoral, but also quite possible....and so on.

Does that help?

Now, there's no reason, therefore, to say that if there were "absolutes" people would not commit crimes. It would just mean they were "bad" if they did. And there's no reason why all people would have the same understanding of an "absolute" morality -- some people would surely not know what the morality was. And, in fact, the right conclusion from the disagreement of many people, as Aristotle showed us, is not "therefore there can be no answer," but rather "some people may be right and others wrong," OR "there may be an answer that none of them is right about."

The first one's probably right, if moral absolutes exist, and certainly if God has told anyone what they are.

If slavery is a absolute, why did churches have slaves? The church also did not condemn slavery as a whole. Only "unjust kinds of slavery" were condemned. Actual condemnation of all slavery took till 1965. My point still stands. The environment and the character of people decide what is moral or ethical and it is purely subjective. For those people slavery was culturally acceptable. It is only today that you can say that Slavery was an absolutely immoral. They didn't think so then. Purely subjective.

The idea that Christians "can't judge" is simply a secular myth.

..Luke 12:57, John 7:24...I could give you a bunch more, but these two will do.

Actually, they don't. Luke 12:57 is simply an instance of how one should judge oneself to avoid taking a matter to court and try and solve a matter by reconciliation. It cannot be interpreted as saying that Christians are allowed to judge.

John 7:24 is Jesus telling people not to judge his making a man well on a sabbath. Again, it does not sanction judging others.

However , Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42, Romans 2:1-3 are explicit in their condemnation of Christians judging others. If you add John 8:1-8, Luke 6:31-36, James 4:11-12, the message is pretty clear.

No, not at all. If I'm wrong, then show me how Atheism rationalizes ANY moral precept, and I'll be happy to apologize. Just one. That's all I ask...one. Fair enough?

I did. You just chose to ignore it for some reason. This is what I wrote before: You cannot understand how an atheist can be good and choose to believe it is arbitrary. But you cannot bring yourself to credit an atheist with reasoning what works for him and what doesn't. No one is good because they are good. They are good because they have figured out that it is beneficial to do so. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And you simply don't seem to understand that right and wrong are irrelevant. Good, bad and better are more appropriate to reality. Being decent, law abiding citizens, doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others, these are things that other people appreciate and respond to. They bring status in society. And that even an atheist understands and implements. He doesn't want to prove he is a good person. He just becomes a good person. No one asks you why you are a good person. The fact that you are one is enough for everyone. Whether he believes in the reality and objectivity of right an wrong is irrelevant. People respond to the goodness not the reason behind it. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

Not so. I agree that Atheism treats them as irrelevant. I just don't agree that Atheism is true.

Now you are generalizing. Atheism does not treat right and wrong as irrelevant. I do. Atheism is just the absence of belief in God. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with it. Other atheists might think right and wrong are relevant. I don't know.

It would be, if it turns out not be God's opinion as well. But He said that anyone who did that sort of thing would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and being chucked into the sea. So I'm pretty sure I'm safe in condemning paedophelia.

So essentially you are doing it out of fear of God's wrath. I concluded that pedophilia harms children from the research and evidence available today. Also you are quoting from Mark 9 or Matthew 18. and it does not seem to be about pedophilia to me at all. It is clearly about protecting children from harm and perishing.