How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Immanuel Can]

IC, we agree, I'm not arguing with you, just doing a bit of idle speculation. Actually we did say the same thing in the posts quoted, did you not read it carefully enough?

Ah, yes...you were elaborating, not caveating. Got it.

It's always so hard to tell the associated nuances when text is all one really has. So much can be ambiguous.

[thedoc]

IC, we agree, I'm not arguing with you, just doing a bit of idle speculation. Actually we did say the same thing in the posts quoted, did you not read it carefully enough?

Ah, yes...you were elaborating, not caveating. Got it.

It's always so hard to tell the associated nuances when text is all one really has. So much can be ambiguous.

Yes, and in my attempt to be brief, I end up not being clear.

[Immanuel Can]

No worries. We all do that too.

[artisticsolution]

This "legitmation" that you think you have, does not exist but is only a ' feeling' you have.

You are repeating exactly what I said an atheist would have to say: "feeling (" or alternately "social approval") is as close as any atheist can come to the ideas of "right" and "wrong"; and they are not even part of the same lexicon, really.

No 'feelings' and 'social approval' are not the same thing. A baby can 'feel' someone is their biological mother, however, whether that someone is actually it's biological mother can be true or untrue. The baby would have no idea until finding out the truth.

Social approval is when people do things because they want to be included in a group of peers.

Ideas of right and wrong do not come from 'God' simply because you or anyone else says so, as we have no real evidence of God. (You yourself admit to this.)

The Idea of right and wrong are as natural as hunting for food. They came out of the will to survive. So did belonging to a social network.


I hesitate to go on, because I think you are incapable at this moment in time of following my thought pattern. This is in keeping with my theory that many Christians have a very poor moral compass.

It is sort of like how some people can visualize and some people cannot. As an artist, I can walk into a room that is is disarray and 'see' what it's potential is...what it can 'become'...I have noticed there are people who cannot do this. I have to actually draw them a picture for them to 'see' it. I believe it is the same with Christians. They cannot understand how non Christians can have a moral compass without a book to guide them. Consider the possibility that some people have gifts that you don't posses...or maybe you have not developed because you have not exercised your mind in that manner...as in...why would you need to exercise your mind when you have a book that does it all for you!

So I say to you, Many Christians lie when they say, they know...100% there is a God. If pressed, they will tell you they are not sure...esp. if they believe God meant..."thou shalt not lie". When you admitted that, you threw any bit of credibility out the window regarding your 'legitmation theory'.

How is anyone, including God, suppose to believe someone when they are not consistent in their stories?

Isn't it less dishonest to say, " I have a strong feeling there is a Good God, whom I love and helps me make it through life. "

It would be, if that was what there was to it. But tell me, would I be more moral if I actually DID no more, and for the sake of pleasing people, pretended I didn't? Which is the greater sin?

This is confused. I don't understand what you are saying here. Please explain.

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't believe in sin. Oh, wait a minute you do: the "sin" of hypocrisy or dishonesty, with which you charge me. So help me out here: do you believe what you take to be my lack of "honesty" is "wrong" or not?

No....you are confused again and putting words in my mouth....this is what I am saying:

1. I have a moral compass (Which may be God given or may be a result of being human, as natural as breathing.)

AND

2. I have developed my moral compass by exercising it and my mind with various truths that Christians believe are socially unacceptable. One being the existence of God.

Christians are notorious for turning a blind eye if it means to question the socially accepted morality of the day. But they fail to see how as the times change, so does their 'morality'. They fail to see how they are on shaky moral ground when they say, "I believe 99.9%" But then also believe, "thou shalt not lie" the two thoughts do not connect. And I don't see why there is even a need for the lie, when it would not be the end of their 99.9% faith if they just told the truth. God would not cease to exist, as they know him. In fact, it would be a better relationship, because at least it would be honest.

As for sin, who am I to say who is sinning? I certainly don't believe a person can be held responsible if they don't understand they are sinning. But I think my test covers that, for themselves, not for just me. I am no judge and jury. But God said, "you shall know them by their fruits." And if that is true...then what am I to think when someone says, "I believe in God, but only 99.9% of the time?" That right there...shows they are either incapable of knowing what they say, or they are lying. Again, what is the harm for a christian in telling the truth? As in this type of truth..., "I feel there is a God" or "I have hope there is a God" How is that not beautiful in it's honesty?

I really cannot figure out what you believe about morality. Are you saying that I'm "wrong" to be a Christian, because I think "wrong" actually exists, and it doesn't? Is that what you are trying to say?

You are trying to put words in my mouth. Please don't do that. I am not saying "Christianity" is wrong. Most Christians resort to this faulty argument.
I am saying that Christians should be held to a higher standard than non Christians. IF they believe the bible is the word of God. They are wrong to actively encourage the lie that they KNOW 100% God exists, when they don't know 100% that he does. The wrongness I see is not made up from thin air. It is in the very book Christians get their morality from according to you! 'Thou shalt not lie"

[Immanuel Can]

Ideas of right and wrong do not come from 'God' simply because you or anyone else says so, as we have no real evidence of God. (You yourself admit to this.)

"No real evidence"? I most certainly do not. Show me where.

Again, you are totally misrepresenting what I've said. I've said there was compelling evidence, just no the mythical "100%" evidence that doesn't exist about anyone or in respect to anything but maths and symbolic logic.

The Idea of right and wrong are as natural as hunting for food. They came out of the will to survive. So did belonging to a social network.

If that were right, then it would be the case that "good" would be that which produces survival, and "evil" that which does not. And this is clearly not how things actually work. For example, we think altruism is "good" though it can kill the people who do it. We think adultery is "bad," though it perpetuates the species much more rapidly that fidelity. So somehow you've got the story here preposterously wrong. But it's a common bad answer, so I guess I can't be terribly surprised if you jump on that broken-down bandwagon.

They cannot understand how non Christians can have a moral compass without a book to guide them.

I have already said this is true. But you didn't read what I said carefully, so you're still making your old mental mistake. I'll say it once more: atheists do *have* a moral compass...what they do not have is a *rational legitimation* for what that compass tells them.

If you imagine otherwise, then I'd be delighted to see your version of secular moral legitimation...because nobody's ever been able to provide me with one that doesn't fall instantly on some very obvious rational fault.

Isn't it less dishonest to say, " I have a strong feeling there is a Good God, whom I love and helps me make it through life. "

It would be, if that was what there was to it. But tell me, would I be more moral if I actually DID no more, and for the sake of pleasing people, pretended I didn't? Which is the greater sin?

This is confused. I don't understand what you are saying here. Please explain.

Very easy. You say you want honesty. But how can it be "honest" if it requires a lie?

You think it's "honest" to say knowledge of God is just a "strong feeling": but it isn't, and anyone who said so would be lying. And yet you says that's the "honest" kind of statement, and anything else would be "dishonest." (your words)

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't believe in sin. Oh, wait a minute you do: the "sin" of hypocrisy or dishonesty, with which you charge me. So help me out here: do you believe what you take to be my lack of "honesty" is "wrong" or not?

No....you are confused again and putting words in my mouth....this is what I am saying:

You missed the important question. You say "honesty" is good and "dishonesty" is wrong: how do you know?

I know how I know, I just have no idea what you imagine is your moral foundation for such a claim if you don't believe morality is objective.

They fail to see how they are on shaky moral ground when they say, "I believe 99.9%" But then also believe, "thou shalt not lie" the two thoughts do not connect.

This error you're making is why we talked about epistemology earlier: NOBODY can say they possess 100% evidence, outside of pure maths and symbolic logic. So every statement made by a human being about what they "believe," whether the most disciplined scientist or the most credulous cultist, is only ever a probabilistic statement...a sort of 99.9% statement, at the very most.

You can't hold Christians -- or scientists -- to an epistemic standard that no human being has ever met since the dawn of time. It's not rational to do so.

I certainly don't believe a person can be held responsible if they don't understand they are sinning.

"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." If they *should have* known, and *could have* found out, and they were just too lazy to do so, they were negligent. And they are guilty. So yes, they can be held responsible.

Only if there was absolutely no way for them to know can they be exonerated by pleading ignorance.

But in the case of morality, if there was absolutely no way for them to know what was actually "good" or "evil," then your question has been answered by you: there is no way to tell right from wrong, then. And your view is simply amoral then.

I really cannot figure out what you believe about morality. Are you saying that I'm "wrong" to be a Christian, because I think "wrong" actually exists, and it doesn't? Is that what you are trying to say?

You are trying to put words in my mouth.

No, I'm asking you what you meant, because you've been far from clear.

I am saying that Christians should be held to a higher standard than non Christians.

Why? What sense would that make, if they are just ordinary people? The only possible reason for holding Christians to a higher standard would be that there IS a higher standard. But you deny that the Christian standard is actually "higher," so you're being inconsistent there.

Now, I can hold Christians to a higher standard, because I believe in the objective existence of that standard. But you have declared flatly that you do not. So make sense of your judgment for me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Ideas of right and wrong do not come from 'God' simply because you or anyone else says so, as we have no real evidence of God. (You yourself admit to this.)

"No real evidence"? I most certainly do not. Show me where.

Again, you are totally misrepresenting what I've said. I've said there was compelling evidence, just no the mythical "100%" evidence that doesn't exist about anyone or in respect to anything but maths and symbolic logic.
:

Even if God appeared each morning in the clouds, this would not give you the right, which you have so clearly taken upon yourself, to know the mind of god and to say without equivocation what is right and wrong.

You are just a bag of wind.

[uwot]

But to respond to your question: why is there not unanimity? Because people are not always so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like...

So how do you differ from 'people' in that respect?

For myself, I don't regard myself as in any way better than others. But for the grace of God, we would all surely be mendacious...and who knows but I might be the worst of the bunch, if left to my own devices?

I think artisticsolution makes the point that, in fact, you do not consider yourself the worst of the bunch. If our level of mendacity is due to “the grace of God” why does your god favour you above others with its grace?

Given what you say above; of the following, should people be “so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like...”
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
As someone who distinguishes themselves from ‘people’, should I assume you take it literally?

[artisticsolution]

So make sense of your judgment for me.

Don't you get it...it's not about my judgment....It's about you and your God's.

How many ways can I say it?

[Immanuel Can]

Don't you get it...it's not about my judgment....It's about you and your God's.

No, no...I mean, give me reasons why you think you can, as you say, "hold Christians" to any "standard". You don't believe in objective standards, so what are you holding them to, and why do you think you are justified to do it?

[Immanuel Can]

I think artisticsolution makes the point that, in fact, you do not consider yourself the worst of the bunch.

Who can say? Am I fit to pronounce myself better or worse than anyone? I floated it merely as a hypothetical case -- I might be, and who knows, perhaps not -- either way, it does not matter a whit what I think on that matter. I could be completely wrong anyway.

It doesn't matter what I might or might not consider myself. Nor does it matter, contra AS, what any person thinks of themselves, or how much bravado they think they could muster at the Judgment.

Man is not his own Judge. He is a contingent creature of some 75 years duration or so, and one whose personal estimation of good and evil is so confused that he could pose a question like the one on this strand.

If our level of mendacity is due to “the grace of God” why does your god favour you above others with its grace?

Not for any good in me, that's for sure. "Grace" is the unmerited favour of God, available to all people. It's "unmerited," in that none of us, including me, deserves it. But it's "gracious" in that God is great enough to forgive us, if we will accept the rescue He offers.

Of course, if we wish to stand as we are, we will.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Once again, I suspect you're not really much interested in the Mosaic Law or Judaism. And not being a spokesman for that view, I'll let others attend to that.

[artisticsolution]

Don't you get it...it's not about my judgment....It's about you and your God's.

No, no...I mean, give me reasons why you think you can, as you say, "hold Christians" to any "standard". You don't believe in objective standards, so what are you holding them to, and why do you think you are justified to do it?

Oh....I thought it was obvious. I am holding Christians to the standard of the bible as it pertains to the scriptures and I am justified to do so because I can.

You forget...I know a little of what I speak. That is...at least more than an atheist who may not have studied the bible or been raised by Christains. And you in the beginning of this thread agreed that Christians should know better...but couldn't say why. As there is no scripture that you can understand enough, as a whole in how it applies to other scriptures, in order to be able to discern right from wrong. You are on a slippery slope, because you can't think for yourself about what it means to be 'moral'. You need to read it in a book.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Don't you get it...it's not about my judgment....It's about you and your God's.

No, no...I mean, give me reasons why you think you can, as you say, "hold Christians" to any "standard". You don't believe in objective standards, so what are you holding them to, and why do you think you are justified to do it?

Why is it that religion robs people of the most basic reasoning skills?

[Obvious Leo]

Why is it that religion robs people of the most basic reasoning skills?

It's written into the rules, Hobbes. All three branches of Abrahamic monotheism explicitly forbid the believer to subject his faith to logical scrutiny. This was a truth made very plain to me by the men in frocks and they showed themselves willing to reinforce their certainties with the liberal use of bamboo canes and dire threats of mortality. Eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is forbidden to a believer.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh....I thought it was obvious. I am holding Christians to the standard of the bible as it pertains to the scriptures and I am justified to do so because I can.

Actually, you cannot be justified unless you also concede that standards exist. Otherwise you're merely being inconsistent.

You can't hold anyone to a standard when there are none.

you in the beginning of this thread agreed that Christians should know better...

Yes, I did...but I can, because I do believe in objective standards, and in fact, believe that truly Christian standards are reflective of them. So there's nothing incoherent about me, as a Christian, holding Christians to real, Christian standards.

But you deny those standards...so what right have you?

but couldn't say why.

Sure I could. You didn't ask.

As there is no scripture that you can understand enough, as a whole in how it applies to other scriptures, in order to be able to discern right from wrong.

This is certainly untrue, and nothing I ever said would support it.

You are on a slippery slope, because you can't think for yourself about what it means to be 'moral'. You need to read it in a book.

Oh, I see...something can't be true if it's written in a book? Seriously, you cannot possibly imagine whether or not something is written down has the smallest bit to do with its truth value: that would be absurd.

You must be supposing that you are somehow in a morally better position, since you "judge for yourself." But it's hard to see why that would be true, since you have absolutely no way to detect whether your judgments are accurate or errant -- there are no objective standards you acknowledge.

So you simply cannot be "right," as by your own view, the idea of "right" has no objective standing.

[Immanuel Can]

All three branches of Abrahamic monotheism explicitly forbid the believer to subject his faith to logical scrutiny.

I'm afraid this is manifestly untrue.

Have you no knowledge of the Jewish intellectual tradition, nor of the Christian contribution to knowledge, ethics and science? So now, since you claim the Torah and New Testament "explicitly forbid" the use of logic, give me the passages you think do that. It shouldn't be hard...you said they're "explicit."

As for the Muslims, I'll let them defend themselves.