[quote]twojarslave wrote:
If you stop and think about why you don’t have faith in Thor,
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure I said I do and do not have faith in Thor, all at the same time.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It simply means that maybe a human, messy, varied job of morality-making is preferable to the alternative.
Edited.[/quote]
I mean, I can’t help but think of gas chambers, chained slaves, and vacuumed babies whenever I read this. [/quote]
God or no god, these things happened. What is at issue is whether or not their having happened is regrettable because you and I say so, or because god says so.[/quote]
Well, that would require one to first find them regrettable. (I can name one celebrated in today’s world, by many, many people…)
So I kind of feel like you’re putting the cart before the horse. We’d have to answer is it truly regrettable?
I’d say yes, and I have to thank Pat for this wonderfully simple explanation: Yes, because there is a victim who is harmed by the act.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
…the painfully obvious fact that there is a lot of faith involved.
[/quote]
Bingo.
I don’t have that sort of faith, not when it comes to believing about the supernatural.
If you stop and think about why you don’t have faith in Thor, you might come to understand why I don’t have faith in Yaweh, Jehova, The Holy Trinity or whatever other name people give to their god or gods. The faith is just not there for me.
There’s really nothing more to it than that.[/quote]
But you’ve already said faith is good enough to base opinion on. [/quote]
No I didn’t. You said that. I said that lack of evidence is sufficient to form opinions, and asserted that people do it all the time. Lack of evidence is why most people don’t believe in faeries, wood elves, El Chupacabra, Bigfoot, Santa, alien conspiracies, hollow earth theory, crystal healing, the list goes on and on.
Faith is faith. Belief in the absence of evidence. It is, by definition, an uninformed opinion, which is fine on the surface. Believe in your god all you want, or magnet therapy, or that the galaxy is just a cell in the eye of a jolly green giant. Doesn’t bother me in the least.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which means that if someone’s faith tells them that God has given man morals, then that is enough for you to believe it is true. And conversely, when OnEdge says his faith tells him that one doesn’t need God for morals to exist, even though he will refuse to use those words for obvious reasons, you have to also believe that is true. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you are getting at here, other than the fact that I acknowledge that some have faith, which shapes their notions of right and wrong, and others, who arrive at their notions of right and wrong in other ways, do not. That’s a given.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Back to the original topic, I believe that these men had a great deal of faith that they were engaging in a deeply moral action as instruments of their God’s will, and I think that is horrible. [/quote]
It seems to me to be a folly to assume god’s will also is the moral option. In fact, it would make more sense to me, that sometimes, God’s will would be immoral. God is God, not bound by a morality that a human would be, if humans are. therefore God’s will, if will even applies to the omnipotent, would certainly fly in the face of morality from time to time.
Seems like no better test of one’s self, faith, lack there of, conviction, etc than to have the will of the Creator go against what you believe to be right. [/quote]
That’s just another way of saying the same thing with different terminology. Perhaps these men viewed their actions as a sort of test like that. At the end of the day, it seems evident that their faith is what guided them to do what they did.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
edit: I’m not a pacifist, for the record. I believe in self-defense and justified acts of killing, but that is an entirely different topic.[/quote]
You don’t come off as a pinko, no worries. [/quote]
Hopefully I came off as someone who could figure out the quote brackets at least.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, that would require one to first find them regrettable. (I can name one celebrated in today’s world, by many, many people…)
So I kind of feel like you’re putting the cart before the horse. We’d have to answer is it truly regrettable?
I’d say yes, and I have to thank Pat for this wonderfully simple explanation: Yes, because there is a victim who is harmed by the act.
[/quote]
You and I find them regrettable, so our condition is met.
Does “god” find them regrettable? Neither of us knows. Perhaps, assuming that he exists, he does; perhaps, on the other hand, he fucking loved watching the Holocaust unfold. In which case – god’s value judgments being objective, after all – you and I are evil, and Rudolph Hoss was supremely good.
The point being that if what is good is simply, by necessity, what god does, then goodness is just as “subjective” on Christianity as it is on atheism. It is just that on Christianity there is a different subject, one whose dicta we call objective because they do not come from us.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But in the end, if we suck huge balls at being moral, which human history tends to show… (At least a significant minority really suck at it) does it matter where the morals come from?
I’d say no…[/quote]
That’s essentially the message I’ve been trying to express.
[/quote]
I’ll be honest, the more I think about this, the more Christianity as it’s been taught to me starts to make sense, lol. Original sin, etc… Man is flawed, evil influence, etc etc etc…
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But you’ve already said faith is good enough to base opinion on. [/quote]
No I didn’t. You said that. I said that lack of evidence is sufficient to form opinions, …
Faith is faith. Belief in the absence of evidence. [/quote]
There is not a material difference between these two things.
I’m not trying to catch you in some sort of conundrum here. (Mainly because I don’t think you’d give two shits if you got caught in one anyway, lol). I’m simply pointing out the giant flaw in the line of reasoning used in this thread previous of “you have to prove your assertions, but I don’t have to prove mine”.
Because when that logic is employed, faith has entered the conversation. “What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without it as well” is essentially what was said, but that is a two way street.
[quote]TwoJars
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which means that if someone’s faith tells them that God has given man morals, then that is enough for you to believe it is true. And conversely, when OnEdge says his faith tells him that one doesn’t need God for morals to exist, even though he will refuse to use those words for obvious reasons, you have to also believe that is true. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you are getting at here, other than the fact that I acknowledge that some have faith, which shapes their notions of right and wrong, and others, who arrive at their notions of right and wrong in other ways, do not. That’s a given.[/quote]
See above. This isn’t directed at you in it’s entirety.
[quote]twojars
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Back to the original topic, I believe that these men had a great deal of faith that they were engaging in a deeply moral action as instruments of their God’s will, and I think that is horrible. [/quote]
It seems to me to be a folly to assume god’s will also is the moral option. In fact, it would make more sense to me, that sometimes, God’s will would be immoral. God is God, not bound by a morality that a human would be, if humans are. therefore God’s will, if will even applies to the omnipotent, would certainly fly in the face of morality from time to time.
Seems like no better test of one’s self, faith, lack there of, conviction, etc than to have the will of the Creator go against what you believe to be right. [/quote]
That’s just another way of saying the same thing with different terminology. Perhaps these men viewed their actions as a sort of test like that. At the end of the day, it seems evident that their faith is what guided them to do what they did.[/quote]
If there is a God, and God’s will is moral, and these men did this as a response to God’s will, then sure their faith guided them to do what they did.
What I’m saying, and why I think it’s different is the middle of that chain. If God’s will isn’t moral, than it isn’t their faith that guided them, but their… human weakness, i guess.
Sidebar: I’m really new to this whole acknowledging, then accepting, then admitting I believe in a “God” thing, so if I’m trampling on someone’s religion here I apologize.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Does “god” find them regrettable? Neither of us knows. Perhaps, assuming that he exists, he does; perhaps, on the other hand, he fucking loved watching the Holocaust unfold. In which case – god’s value judgments[/quote]
God could have been perfectly fine with the atrocities committed on men by another, and still not have it reflect of value judgement.
I guess what I’m saying is, are you assuming God is anything but indifferent to human suffering? because, if so, why?
I just feel like an omnipotent being doesn’t really have “care” or “love” or “joy” and any morality passed by God is neither here nor there to God. God is God.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Does “god” find them regrettable? Neither of us knows. Perhaps, assuming that he exists, he does; perhaps, on the other hand, he fucking loved watching the Holocaust unfold. In which case – god’s value judgments[/quote]
God could have been perfectly fine with the atrocities committed on men by another, and still not have it reflect of value judgement.
I guess what I’m saying is, are you assuming God is anything but indifferent to human suffering? because, if so, why?[/quote]
Not really: I’m talking about what happens to morality if god is as Christians generally believe he is, which, of course, involves his being – the following term is meant literally – judgmental of human affairs, of right and wrong.
I sort of get the feeling that you’re getting at the reality or otherwise of god. I’m getting at the consequences of his hypothetical existence. Specifically the consequences vis-a-vis the morality of human action.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between a lack of evidence and ignoring evidence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Faith.
Everyone’s got it.
Lots of it.
Everyone applies it.
Somewhere.
Everyone. [/quote]
Yup, and the people that claim to lack it have most of it. Talk about believing in magic…
Why is it here? Magic.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between a lack of evidence and ignoring evidence. [/quote]
There is.
I think our differences on the matter probably boil down to the standards we hold for something to be considered evidence.
That’s just my guess anyway.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]
Bingo.
If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.
Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]
Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.
Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?
It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?[/quote]
My basic point is that claiming that morality is “objective” isn’t useful and doesn’t solve any practical problems unless we can all agree on what is moral. Precisely because humans can’t know what god’s will is or prove the claim one way or the other. We still have to fight for the right rules and then enforce the rules through human institutions. So, even if morality is, in fact, objective, in the sense that the rules are handed down by god, where does that get us if we can’t prove what the rules are?
[/quote]
Okay, so what the terrorists in France did is cool then? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, hell they may be right. Why be mad about it? Why even call it wrong? There is no basis and morality has no meaning. So why is the terrorist act in France wrong? Other than you don’t like it, or a lot of people don’t like it.
If you cannot answer that, then it must not be wrong. After all, it’s subjective.
And that is it’s weakness. If you believe in subjective morality, anything is permissible. The most abominable shit is fine. You don’t have to like it. Whether you like it or not has no value whatsoever.
So if you can justify the most horrific acts? that’s the only way to support subjective morality.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between a lack of evidence and ignoring evidence. [/quote]
There is.
I think our differences on the matter probably boil down to the standards we hold for something to be considered evidence.
That’s just my guess anyway.
[/quote]
What standard is that?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.[/quote]
Yes, that.[/quote]’
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
How is the concept of an objective moral code useful? I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Think of it like reality itself. If reality was entirely subjective there would be no “real” and universal reality. There would only be billions of different subjective realities of each sentient being. It’s the same with ethics. I don’t remember now if you are in agreement with this(have to reread your posts from yesterday sorry) but it’s a true proposition that should form as an axiom in any serious debate.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Does “god” find them regrettable? Neither of us knows. Perhaps, assuming that he exists, he does; perhaps, on the other hand, he fucking loved watching the Holocaust unfold. In which case – god’s value judgments[/quote]
God could have been perfectly fine with the atrocities committed on men by another, and still not have it reflect of value judgement.
I guess what I’m saying is, are you assuming God is anything but indifferent to human suffering? because, if so, why?[/quote]
Not really: I’m talking about what happens to morality if god is as Christians generally believe he is, which, of course, involves his being – the following term is meant literally – judgmental of human affairs, of right and wrong.[/quote]
Okay. So that still doesn’t imply that God would be anything other than indifferent. After all, it would be us, or soul that pays the price, not God. Our actions aren’t a reflection upon God if God gave us free will. And if God judges, we must have free will.
So, in that respect, it still doesn’t become necessary for God to make an actual moral judgement beyond: “these are the moral rules set upon the Earth, you failed to follow them here and followed them here. You also did X here that was what you saw as my will, but broke the moral laws laid upon the Earth…” His judgement would just be a pass/fail, neither effecting his “emotion” for lack of a better word.
I have no idea what I’m getting at. This thread is breaking up the monotony of this audit lol.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
Okay… So you’re saying a lack of evidence is sufficient for one to base an opinion on?
[/quote]
Sure. Everyone does it all of the time. Someone else coined the term, but let’s accept that most people today are aTHORists, and this is not at all a controversial opinion. As cool as he is, Thor is sorely lacking in modern disciples.
Can you prove that Thor, God of Thunder and Oak, does not exist?
If not, do you believe in his existence?
If not, why not?[/quote]
It’s not hard to see why the pagans of North and Western Europe deified the oak tree. The common oak can live for thousands of years and some are big enough that people have built houses in their trunks. The yew is similarly revered and is associated with burial sites, death and the gods. At some of the oldest Christian graveyards in Western Europe there are ancient yew trees that were there in pagan times. Pliny records that the Druids performed their sacred ceremonies in ancient oak groves and many of the early Christian churches were built on these sites and ancient oak trees often remain on these sites to this day.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
How is the concept of an objective moral code useful? I’m not sure what you mean exactly.
[/quote]
I’ll assume that the fact of an “objective moral code” is true, i.e., that it exists, and that it exists independent of man. That begs the question: what is the objective moral code? If we have to argue about what the code is or can’t define it with objective certainty, then why is claiming it exists even useful?
For example:
Proponent: “There is this code out there, and every moral action is defined by the code as objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘evil.’”
Student: “Ok, great, tell me the rules, I want to live my life according the the objective moral code.”
Proponent: “Well, we can’t say for certain exactly what the code is. That is the subject of some debate.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. I guess I’ll have to use my judgment as to what the moral code is.”
Proponent: “You can’t do that, because your subjective beliefs as to what is moral, good, or evil don’t count. The only thing that counts is the tenets of the objective code.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. How is this objective moral code useful again?”
Proponent: “It tells you how to behave morally.”
Student: “Whatever you say, I guess.”
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I’ll assume that the fact of an “objective moral code” is true, i.e., that it exists, and that it exists independent of man. That begs the question: what is the objective moral code? If we have to argue about what the code is or can’t define it with objective certainty, then why is claiming it exists even useful?
[/quote]
Okay, I understand what you’re asking now but if memory serves me correctly we’ve covered this exact point recently in another thread. My answer is that although man is inherently immoral(for the most part), he is able to perceive objective morality - he knows right from wrong. He instinctively knows that it is immoral to rob or murder his neighbour or a passing traveller. So morality is not only universal and objective it is also universally perceived and understood. I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality.
[quote]
For example:
Proponent: “There is this code out there, and every moral action is defined by the code as objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘evil.’”
Student: “Ok, great, tell me the rules, I want to live my life according the the objective moral code.”
Proponent: “Well, we can’t say for certain exactly what the code is. That is the subject of some debate.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. I guess I’ll have to use my judgment as to what the moral code is.”
Proponent: “You can’t do that, because your subjective beliefs as to what is moral, good, or evil don’t count. The only thing that counts is the tenets of the objective code.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. How is this objective moral code useful again?”
Proponent: “It tells you how to behave morally.”
Student: “Whatever you say, I guess.” [/quote]
See above. We all know when we’re doing something wrong even though we often try to delude ourselves and paint ourselves as righteous, deep down we know the truth; we can perceive objective morality. At least, we can to an extent approaching near universality.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I’ll assume that the fact of an “objective moral code” is true, i.e., that it exists, and that it exists independent of man. That begs the question: what is the objective moral code? If we have to argue about what the code is or can’t define it with objective certainty, then why is claiming it exists even useful?
[/quote]
Okay, I understand what you’re asking now but if memory serves me correctly we’ve covered this exact point recently in another thread. My answer is that although man is inherently immoral(for the most part), he is able to perceive objective morality - he knows right from wrong. He instinctively knows that it is immoral to rob or murder his neighbour or a passing traveller. So morality is not only universal and objective it is also universally perceived and understood. I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality.
[quote]
For example:
Proponent: “There is this code out there, and every moral action is defined by the code as objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘evil.’”
Student: “Ok, great, tell me the rules, I want to live my life according the the objective moral code.”
Proponent: “Well, we can’t say for certain exactly what the code is. That is the subject of some debate.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. I guess I’ll have to use my judgment as to what the moral code is.”
Proponent: “You can’t do that, because your subjective beliefs as to what is moral, good, or evil don’t count. The only thing that counts is the tenets of the objective code.”
Student: “Well, fuck me, that sucks. How is this objective moral code useful again?”
Proponent: “It tells you how to behave morally.”
Student: “Whatever you say, I guess.” [/quote]
See above. We all know when we’re doing something wrong even though we often try to delude ourselves and paint ourselves as righteous, deep down we know the truth; we can perceive objective morality. At least, we can to an extent approaching near universality.[/quote]
I tend to agree with you. Where we may part ways is that perceiving right from wrong necessarily and by definition requires divine intervention or supernatural forces.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Okay. So that still doesn’t imply that God would be anything other than indifferent. After all, it would be us, or soul that pays the price, not God. Our actions aren’t a reflection upon God if God gave us free will. And if God judges, we must have free will. [/quote]
Well, I am using the example of Christianity for purposes of illustration, so god, on that worldview (in its popular forms), is indeed interested. But it doesn’t matter either way, because this…
[quote]
"…these are the moral rules set upon the Earth…[/quote]
…is all my argument needs.
[quote]
I have no idea what I’m getting at. This thread is breaking up the monotony of this audit lol. [/quote]
I hear ya. It’s breaking up the monotony of my work, too. Which is a problem.