Please answer this question.

[AlbertJ]

I read and understood exactly what you said

I know.

[pavlos]

Addendum to post #87:

No one has claimed any absolutes, in regard to good or evil, But it seems strawmaning is the key component within this religious BS. Absolutes are the produce of the immature mind as there are always shades of grey. As far as we know at present there is nothing greater than man, It’s only possible to say that a god’s input was necessary if no other force or agent could have produced it. A god is excess to requirements.

And on Justice.

A god that would send someone to an eternity of punishment, simply for not believing in it, is not a god of justice, it is arrogant self-absorbed bully.
a god is the ultimate mafia boss, (It's gonna make you an offer you can't refuse, literally.)

Also “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

-- Euthyphro (via. Socrates)


The Euthyphro Dilemma

Divine command theory is widely held to be refuted by an argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma. This argument is named after Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for the argument, though not, as is sometimes thought, the argument itself.

The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

Each of these two possibilities, the argument runs, leads to consequences that the divine command theorist cannot accept. Whichever way the divine command theorist answers the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
“Is justice willed by God because it is justified, or is it justified because it is willed by God?"

[Jarik]

As lily so adroitly pointed out, you cannot simultaneously insist there is nothing greater than man himself while proclaiming a belief in the concept of universal good and universal evil. Either there is something greater than man who sets the standard or you are projecting yourself as God. Hmmmm, that sounds familiar. The bottom line remains, God has the right to take life.

We did not claim there is a universal good or evil, in my above post I showed that a flexible good and evil can exist, where actions are identified as "good" or "evil" depending on how they help people and the human race. Why do I choose helping people and the human race? Because, under the assumption that there is no god, as organisms, our one true purpose of sorts is to protect our own race. So we should at least adhere to that.

And your bottom line is still a matter of opinion. I can argue that to give life and take it away is like presenting a starving man with food and then eating it in front of him. You had the food, it was yours, you can do whatever you want with it. But does that make it right to goad a poor starving man?

What if God decided he wanted to make generation after generation of humans, each time just to kill them over and over for fun?

Do you think YOU have the right to kill your own son or daughter?

[Dreamy]

To those on this thread,do you accept that you are NOT omnipresent or all knowing? Do you believe that BOTH good and evil are/were essentially parts of God's divine process of creation? Do you believe the human intellect is truly limited and restrained by personal imagination and emotions? Is the only way to truly "know" the answers is through intuitive knowledge?

[pavlos]

To those on this thread,do you accept that you are NOT omnipresent or all knowing?

Yes. it is infantile to even think it.

Do you believe that BOTH good and evil are/were essentially parts of God's divine process of creation?

No. a fictional character, cannot create. But good and evil are in all creatures natures, although it does depend on our definitions of good and evil.

Do you believe the human intellect is truly limited and restrained by personal imagination and emotions?

No, we couldn't possibly say, as it is not known, it is clear we haven't reached our full potential yet.

Is the only way to truly "know" the answers is through intuitive knowledge?

No, It is said that intuition provide some with beliefs that they cannot necessarily justify, But I belief intuition also work via the knowledge we've gained through our lives. Such has innovation. Intuition is an irrational function, A intuitive type person, does not act on rational judgement. But all educated people can have an intuitive moment. just as all brunettes can have a blonde moment.

[AlbertJ]

To those on this thread,do you accept that you are NOT omnipresent or all knowing?

Yes.

Do you believe that BOTH good and evil are/were essentially parts of God's divine process of creation?

Yes.

Do you believe the human intellect is truly limited and restrained by personal imagination and emotions?

Limited? Yes. Restrained? Somewhat, yes.

Is the only way to truly "know" the answers is through intuitive knowledge?

No. If by this you mean discovery then I can agree. I do not believe discovery is entirely intuitive, although it requires it.

[AlbertJ]

a fictional character, cannot create. .

Well, mankind creates. We make cars and airplanes and buildings. Some of the people who have done these things successfully no longer exist.

I agree with you here 100% pavlos that a fictional character cannot create.

Only a non-fiction, factual character has the ability to create.

It amazes me that you can make such wonderful points yet refuse to acknowledge the existence of your own maker.

[pavlos]

Well, mankind creates. We make cars and airplanes and buildings. Some of the people who have done these things successfully no longer exist.

I agree with you here 100% pavlos that a fictional character cannot create.

Only a non-fiction, factual character has the ability to create.

It amazes me that you can make such wonderful points yet refuse to acknowledge the existence of your own maker.

Hey wait a minute there, I respect my mum and dad. I really do appreciate them creating me.

I do hope you didn't mean a god, as that would be laughable.

Yet you agree with me about a fictional character!!!!!!!

[hadit]

We did not claim there is a universal good or evil, in my above post I showed that a flexible good and evil can exist, where actions are identified as "good" or "evil" depending on how they help people and the human race. Why do I choose helping people and the human race? Because, under the assumption that there is no god, as organisms, our one true purpose of sorts is to protect our own race. So we should at least adhere to that.

Flexible means non-existent. If there is no fixed standard of morality set from outside of man to which God can be held, you are essentially stuck arguing that God is immoral because you personally believe Him to be, which places you in a position of authority over Him. And therein lies the problem, because in order to be God, He has to be greater than you and you would therefore have no standing to declare Him immoral. In this regard, the only way you could declare God to be immoral is if He swore that He would never kill a human being, then proceed to do so. He has never done that, obviously. In addition, an absolute being cannot be held to a standard by those inferior to Him. He can only hold Himself to His own standard, and God has done that.

And your bottom line is still a matter of opinion. I can argue that to give life and take it away is like presenting a starving man with food and then eating it in front of him. You had the food, it was yours, you can do whatever you want with it. But does that make it right to goad a poor starving man?

Not quite. Your analogy ignores the behavior of the starving man. Would you not be morally correct to serve justice upon that man if he not only refused your gift of food, but actively prevented other starving people from approaching the table?

What if God decided he wanted to make generation after generation of humans, each time just to kill them over and over for fun?

What if? Impossible to know, because it didn't happen.

Do you think YOU have the right to kill your own son or daughter?

In the US, I DO have that right as long as I exercise it any time prior to my child's completely exiting the womb.

[AlbertJ]

In the US, I DO have that right as long as I exercise it any time prior to my child's completely exiting the womb.

hmm

[lily]

But moral relativism can still be used to call God unjust.

No, it can't. Sure, a moral relativist can try to claim that God is unjust, but their claim would be self-defeating and meaningless, because according to their own worldview, there IS no such thing as an actual justice. There can't be, unless there is an external standard that is true for all people - regardless of whether or not someone believes it or follows it.

Above all things, the survival of the species and the health of our fellow humans is our priority and we can make relative morals that compliment this goal (most of which agree with the big morals followed today)

Who's "we"...mankind as a whole? Um, have you taken a look at the world lately? Or any time in history? Mankind hasn't stopped fighting since the dawn of time, I think your desire for everyone to hold hands and decide on morality is a pipe dream.

But here's the more important issue and question to ask: What actually IS true? And what is the nature of truth itself? Can we really just decide (maybe take a vote) on what is moral and what isn't moral? Again, we CAN try, but does that make it actually true? Have you thought this through?

If morality was truly "relative"... then we each just decide what is "true" for us, and it would be true. So, if that's the case, then there would be no true moral difference beween a serial killer brutally raping, torturing and murdering a small child.... and another person acting in a selfless, gentle and kind way towards that child. Person A, the serial killer, would be morally equal to Person B. Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that's the case? Not just according to your personal opinion, but from a standpoint of what is objectively true?

If moral relativism is true, then there is no such thing as right/wrong, moral/immoral. Even words like "moral" or "fairness" or "justice" would be completely meaningless. Because if moral relativism was true, then it's merely a matter of personal preference, like which flavor of ice cream we like best.

And you wouldn't even be able to object to anyone's actions or tell them they're "wrong" for doing something, because according to THEIR morality, they would be right. You voicing a complaint would be akin to you telling someone, "You are WRONG for liking vanilla better than chocolate!!!"

Funny, isn't it, how you don't see very many people getting passionate and fighting about what flavor of ice cream people should prefer.... Yet, you DO see people getting very passionate about issues of justice and morality. Why is that? Why do you get upset when a pedophile molests a child in your neigborhood or when a politician lies to the public? That's THEIR morality which is merely a matter of personal preference... right? And don't say it's because they broke the law. If there were no laws at all, would you still get angry at a pedophile who molested your daughter? Why would you? He didn't break a law, right? And his "decide-for-yourself morality" is no better or worse than your "decide-for-yourself morality", if moral relativism is true.

If God committed the atrocities told of in the old writings, including genocide and enslavement, then he is immoral according to these relative morals because genocide and enslavement are bad for the survival and health of humanity.

You clearly have not studied the bible or understood it, if that is what you think about God. And no offense, but do you realize how silly and pointless it is to apply OUR relative morals to God? Hello? We're talking about the highest power and author of life itself... and you're asserting that he would be immoral according to OUR relative morals? That's wrong on a number of levels. First of all, if the morals really are relative, then no one would be right or wrong... that's impossible. If moral relativism is true, then the best you've got is to say that you don't agree with someone else's chosen "morality".... kind of like how you would disagree with certain people on ice cream flavors or what color they like best.

The exception being genocide used to solve world hunger or something, which could actually be good for humanity given the correct circumstances.

If "what is good for humanity" is the only criteria for morality, then who decides? We take a vote? What if our leaders decide that a communist, totalitarian government and "saving food" by only giving people one small meal a day is what is best for humanity and the planet? Would that be acceptable to you? What if people decided that "what is good for our species" is outlawing marriage and sex, so no one would reproduce.... would that be moral? The possibilities are endless, when we're talking about moral relativism or the "what is best for our species" scenario.

I'll try to get to your other post later. It's getting late here.

[pavlos]

In the US a zygot/embryo cannot be aborted after the first trimester it is against the law, the only time it happens after is due to medical reasons such as the mothers life is in danger. In the first trimester the embryo is merely a collection of cells it does not have any of the traits of a normal human ie a brain etc.

No, it can't. Sure, a moral relativist can try to claim that God is unjust, but their claim would be self-defeating and meaningless, because according to their own worldview, there IS no such thing as an actual justice.

Yes there is, humans have created our justice system it has nothing to do with any religion.

There can't be, unless there is an external standard that is true for all people - regardless of whether or not someone believes it or follows it.

Yes there is an external standard, it is not relevant whether everything within justice is equal, the fact that we all know what is basically right, and what a god is basically devoid of, is key.
Also your god itself doesn't have a moral standard, it changed from the OT to NT, though I disagree with that, considering you reject all the nasty things in the OT, you obviously don't.

Who's "we"...mankind as a whole? Um, have you taken a look at the world lately? Or any time in history? Mankind hasn't stopped fighting since the dawn of time, I think your desire for everyone to hold hands and decide on morality is a pipe dream.

As may be, But it is mostly due to religious differences your not helping your cause here.

But here's the more important issue and question to ask: What actually IS true? And what is the nature of truth itself? Can we really just decide (maybe take a vote) on what is moral and what isn't moral? Again, we CAN try, but does that make it actually true? Have you thought this through?

You certainly haven't.
We are social animals, we live within a group, the main truths we hold are those that do no harm to ourselves or to others this is the essence of sociality, our morals are beneficial to the whole human race, a god is not necessary.

If morality was truly "relative"... then we each just decide what is "true" for us, and it would be true.

It is a collective decision not an individual decision, your being short sighted.

So, if that's the case, then there would be no true moral difference beween a serial killer brutally raping, torturing and murdering a small child.... and another person acting in a selfless, gentle and kind way towards that child. Person A, the serial killer, would be morally equal to Person B. Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that's the case? Not just according to your personal opinion, but from a standpoint of what is objectively true?

Under the christian doctrine a serial killer can kill hundreds of people throughout their life, but if they repent and accept jesus they go to heaven.
On the other side of the coin you can be a good person, helping people, even sacrifice you life for another, but because they didn't believe in your god they go to hell.
There is no justice or fairness whatsoever in the christian worldview.

If moral relativism is true, then there is no such thing as right/wrong, moral/immoral. Even words like "moral" or "fairness" or "justice" would be completely meaningless. Because if moral relativism was true, then it's merely a matter of personal preference, like which flavor of ice cream we like best.

Answered above, morals are society based, but are basically the same.

And you wouldn't even be able to object to anyone's actions or tell them they're "wrong" for doing something, because according to THEIR morality, they would be right. You voicing a complaint would be akin to you telling someone, "You are WRONG for liking vanilla better than chocolate!!!"

Those are laws, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" However in regard to our basic morality I can object if it is doing harm to me or others or even society as a whole.

You clearly have not studied the bible or understood it, if that is what you think about God. And no offense, but do you realize how silly and pointless it is to apply OUR relative morals to God?

Why what other way is there to judge the god character, nothing is beyond judgement, it is insane to think otherwise.

Hello? We're talking about the highest power and author of life itself...

Irrelevant it makes no difference higher power or not. Might does not make right.

and you're asserting that he would be immoral according to OUR relative morals?

If our morals are instilled by god then what we find immoral, god should also find immoral. Otherwise it is "do what I say not what I do". We follow by example.

If "what is good for humanity" is the only criteria for morality, then who decides?

We do as a collective.

What if our leaders decide that a communist, totalitarian government

Well that would only lead to a biblical based world, it is what jesus wanted.

and "saving food" by only giving people one small meal a day is what is best for humanity and the planet? Would that be acceptable to you?

Yes, if it meant the survival of the species.

What if people decided that "what is good for our species" is outlawing marriage and sex,

Christians have already tried that, lol.

so no one would reproduce.... would that be moral?

Again if it meant the actual survival of the species, then it got to be good, but we would never have a situation where there were no reproduction as that would mean the end of the species.

[AlbertJ]

We are social animals, we live within a group, the main truths we hold are those that do no harm to ourselves or to others this is the essence of sociality, our morals are beneficial to the whole human race, a god is not necessary.

Regarding the "essence of sociality", how do you explain all the harm we actually do to one another?

[pavlos]

Regarding the "essence of sociality", how do you explain all the harm we actually do to one another?

External sources like religion, politics, etc.. and from those hate, jealousy, greed, envy, etc..

[Pappy&Me]

Jarik: it is really pointless trying to convince the theist on this board, heck all theist their god is bad. As they cannot critically think, they are blinkered and biased to there own personal (SPAG(Self Projection As God)ed) deity, they cannot see the immorality in their own god as it is a personification of themselves. Hence why they cannot see the immorality in the acts and actions, they allow their god to take.
If you think of them as suffering with a virus (of the mind) it is easier to allow them to ramble on with their assumptions, the only reason you should post your thoughts or rebuttals, should be for other who aren't so closed/minded to see the rational/logical side of the argument.

I think their 'assumptions'are much more logical and openminded than some who would rather 'assume'they were a god themselves and self created out of some kind of universial feces!

Maybe we are here for a reason and to keep us from completely destroying ourselves and everythign else,their are laws we go by or we get zapped now and then.

[Pappy&Me]

Addendum to post #87:

No one has claimed any absolutes, in regard to good or evil, But it seems strawmaning is the key component within this religious BS. Absolutes are the produce of the immature mind as there are always shades of grey. As far as we know at present there is nothing greater than man, It’s only possible to say that a god’s input was necessary if no other force or agent could have produced it. A god is excess to requirements.

And on Justice.

A god that would send someone to an eternity of punishment, simply for not believing in it, is not a god of justice, it is arrogant self-absorbed bully.
a god is the ultimate mafia boss, (It's gonna make you an offer you can't refuse, literally.)

Also “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

-- Euthyphro (via. Socrates)


The Euthyphro Dilemma

Divine command theory is widely held to be refuted by an argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma. This argument is named after Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for the argument, though not, as is sometimes thought, the argument itself.

The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

Each of these two possibilities, the argument runs, leads to consequences that the divine command theorist cannot accept. Whichever way the divine command theorist answers the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
“Is justice willed by God because it is justified, or is it justified because it is willed by God?"

Maybe you should ask this question to history?Are people more healthy and happier when they live moral lives or are they better off with no moral objectives?

Are teens and seniors 'who have even surpased teens with VD'better off not with an epedemic of VD then they were without it.

We are living longer now thanks to science,but not living better.We are the most depressed society in our history.

[pavlos]

I think their 'assumptions'are much more logical and openminded

How so, explain.

'assume' they were a god themselves and self created out of some kind of universial feces!

who thinks their god, I certainly don't, you have a warped idea of non-belief if you think that.
How can we come from feces you fool, a biological animal has to exist before there would be any such thing, and christian doctrine says we were created from dirt, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe we are here for a reason

What reason would that be?

and to keep us from completely destroying ourselves and everythign else,their are laws we go by or we get zapped now and then.

Laws that were defined by us not god, please point out the laws of society that align with the ten commandments, I will predict that you will only find two.

Maybe you should ask this question to history?Are people more healthy and happier when they live moral lives or are they better off with no moral objectives?

You clearly haven't comprehended the euthyphro dilemma, also glossed over previous posts of mine.
This also implies that people who aren't of your religion have no morals, isn't that a bit arrogant of you to say.
Do you really think that before moses brought down the ten commandments from mount sinai, that everybody thought it was good to kill or steal, you are incredibly naive if you do.

Are teens and seniors 'who have even surpased teens with VD'better off not with an epedemic of VD then they were without it.

Now your going off on a tangent, and not making much sense.

We are living longer now thanks to science,but not living better.We are the most depressed society in our history.

Evidence please, you have made a statement that requires proof, if you do not provide proof then I have no other option but to consider it your personal opinion and not fact.
When you say society I assume you mean America, well considering that America is more than eighty percent religious, I'm not surprised its a more depressed society, their world view is a totalitarian system.

[Jarik]

No, it can't. Sure, a moral relativist can try to claim that God is unjust, but their claim would be self-defeating and meaningless, because according to their own worldview, there IS no such thing as an actual justice. There can't be, unless there is an external standard that is true for all people - regardless of whether or not someone believes it or follows it.

As I explained once before and again bellow, justice is a product of morality paralleling the survival of our species. If an action is bad for our species, then justice is done upon it.

Who's "we"...mankind as a whole? Um, have you taken a look at the world lately? Or any time in history? Mankind hasn't stopped fighting since the dawn of time, I think your desire for everyone to hold hands and decide on morality is a pipe dream.

That's not what I said. Humanity can survive and do war on itself at the same time, otherwise we would not exist right now. When I say the survival of mankind, I mean just its survival, I'm not saying we're going to join hands and give up fighting, that cannot possibly happen because we still have Islam

But here's the more important issue and question to ask: What actually IS true? And what is the nature of truth itself? Can we really just decide (maybe take a vote) on what is moral and what isn't moral? Again, we CAN try, but does that make it actually true? Have you thought this through?

For one, it comes intuitively to us through our subconscious. Secondly, how is my method any less sensible then picking up a 2000 year old tome and deciding to go by its morals without any proof?

If morality was truly "relative"... then we each just decide what is "true" for us, and it would be true. So, if that's the case, then there would be no true moral difference beween a serial killer brutally raping, torturing and murdering a small child.... and another person acting in a selfless, gentle and kind way towards that child. Person A, the serial killer, would be morally equal to Person B. Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that's the case? Not just according to your personal opinion, but from a standpoint of what is objectively true?

Person A is inflicting unnecessary pain on the child and our bodies are programmed to want to help that child, because the youth are the future of our species. Like I said, if we align our morals with humanity's survival, murdering the child becomes wrong because the child is a human.

Unnecessarily inflicted pain is also immoral to all species because it simply accomplishes nothing and causes a negative reaction in the victim, therefore it is counterproductive to ALL things.

If moral relativism is true, then there is no such thing as right/wrong, moral/immoral. Even words like "moral" or "fairness" or "justice" would be completely meaningless. Because if moral relativism was true, then it's merely a matter of personal preference, like which flavor of ice cream we like best.

That's not moral relativism, that's moral nihilism. You have to remember that moral relativism is morality aligned with a certain cause.

Funny, isn't it, how you don't see very many people getting passionate and fighting about what flavor of ice cream people should prefer.... Yet, you DO see people getting very passionate about issues of justice and morality. Why is that? Why do you get upset when a pedophile molests a child in your neigborhood or when a politician lies to the public? That's THEIR morality which is merely a matter of personal preference... right? And don't say it's because they broke the law. If there were no laws at all, would you still get angry at a pedophile who molested your daughter? Why would you? He didn't break a law, right? And his "decide-for-yourself morality" is no better or worse than your "decide-for-yourself morality", if moral relativism is true.

As I stated above, that's moral nihilism, and I do NOT support it.

You clearly have not studied the bible or understood it, if that is what you think about God. And no offense, but do you realize how silly and pointless it is to apply OUR relative morals to God? Hello? We're talking about the highest power and author of life itself... and you're asserting that he would be immoral according to OUR relative morals? That's wrong on a number of levels. First of all, if the morals really are relative, then no one would be right or wrong... that's impossible. If moral relativism is true, then the best you've got is to say that you don't agree with someone else's chosen "morality".... kind of like how you would disagree with certain people on ice cream flavors or what color they like best.

That's like saying a peasant can't disagree with a king. Nobility are infinitely more intelligent and powerful than those that serve them, but if no one ever questioned their morals, then America wouldn't even exist for starters.

This is also all under the assumption that God is following a moral code that was already there, and that he knows it better than us. In truth, if he is God, then he created morality in his own view. Maybe we want to change it, maybe it isn't perfect. Your claims, after all, do act under the assumption that God is 100% infallible and the only things to support that claim are writings from the Bible that could have very well been simple lies to make rebellion against his regime seem fruitless.

If "what is good for humanity" is the only criteria for morality, then who decides? We take a vote? What if our leaders decide that a communist, totalitarian government and "saving food" by only giving people one small meal a day is what is best for humanity and the planet? Would that be acceptable to you? What if people decided that "what is good for our species" is outlawing marriage and sex, so no one would reproduce.... would that be moral? The possibilities are endless, when we're talking about moral relativism or the "what is best for our species" scenario.

I'll try to get to your other post later. It's getting late here.

Christianity's guidelines don't prohibit totalitarianism, communism, or rationing either silly lily

And if outlawing sex kept us from overpopulating and dying, then outlaw sex damn it. Wouldn't you rather go without sex and survive on a full stomach than go do the dirty-dirty and starve to death? I know I would.

[hadit]

In the US a zygot/embryo cannot be aborted after the first trimester it is against the law, the only time it happens after is due to medical reasons such as the mothers life is in danger. In the first trimester the embryo is merely a collection of cells it does not have any of the traits of a normal human ie a brain etc.

Not so. There is no federal law banning abortion after the first trimester. It is therefore legal for me to kill my own children, as long as I do it before they completely emerge from the womb.

[AlbertJ]

External sources like religion, politics, etc.. and from those hate, jealousy, greed, envy, etc..

These are all character related references of which I recall you profess not to believe exist.