Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[ringo747]

It's no less relevant than the barrage of hypotheticals you've offered me.

I don't believe in objective morality but you do, hence why I am asking for your take on it.

Tell you what... I'll sit much more happily with my world view than any opposing view in which you can't even admit that rape is wrong regardless of circumstance. It's actually scary that anyone can hold this view.

'Consider the context' is nothing but code for "That was considered moral then, but isn't now so we'll change our interpretation of the scripture to fit with modern values and pretend that's what the Bible meant all along".

What do you mean 'considered then'? Revelation is supposed to be about events that are future.

 

[RDM]

What do you mean 'considered then'? Revelation is supposed to be about events that are future.

Depends on the interpretation, one school of thought is that it described events in the 1st Century AD.

As an aside I would classify rape as always wrong due to the harm involved.

 

[Jason2]

Depends on the interpretation, one school of thought is that it described events in the 1st Century AD.

As an aside I would classify rape as always wrong due to the harm involved.

Why is it wrong? One could say it is beneficial to the survival of the human race.

 

[ringo747]

Depends on the interpretation, one school of thought is that it described events in the 1st Century AD.

As an aside I would classify rape as always wrong due to the harm involved.

What about rape of someone in a coma? Is this still wrong if no harm is done, and the person doesn't even know it happened?

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Morally to me, stealing is wrong (I have no need to steal).
Morally to Aladdin, stealing is not wrong (he needs to steal to live).

So surely this means it's subjective depending on circumstance?

No, it means 'do not steal' is a lawful statement, and an incomplete moral. A more complete moral may be - stealing without need (exclusive of want) is wrong.

 

[estebanrey]

Tell you what... I'll sit much more happily with my world view than any opposing view in which you can't even admit that rape is wrong regardless of circumstance. It's actually scary that anyone can hold this view.

Maybe because you are writing that in a way that completely ignores all the arguments I've made and frames it in a way that mis-represents my position.

For a start I've never claimed 'rape is OK in some cirumstances' as you imply.

What do you mean 'considered then'? Revelation is supposed to be about events that are future.

I was talking about Biblical revisionism in general. But that bit I quoted wasn't a prophecy, it was a warning.

 

[RDM]

Why is it wrong? One could say it is beneficial to the survival of the human race.

What about rape of someone in a coma? Is this still wrong if no harm is done, and the person doesn't even know it happened?

What I find most disturbing is that without God as a guide you keep trying to find ways to justify evil acts. Is God really the only reason you behave?

Rape isn't beneficial to the survival of he human race as we can survive perfectly well without it. So the harm done is without any balancing positive.

Raping someone in a coma is a violation of their person with no benefit to them so is morally wrong, it also causes harm to society (a lack of trust in care) and has potential health impacts too.

The fact that I have to justify why raping someone in a coma is wrong making me slightly nauseous.

 

[estebanrey]

Why is it wrong? One could say it is beneficial to the survival of the human race.

There are 7 billion people on Earth and growing. Almost no country on Earth (except a few mad ones in the Middle East) permit rape so your statement is demonstrably untrue.

Secondly, the prime objective of a rapist isn't to impregnate his victim.

Until love and sexual consent go out of fashion (which it never will) rape won't be needed to ensure the survival of the human race.

Finally, you'd have to argue that keeping our species going is inherently moral and needed for your statement not to have a false premise anyway.

 

[ringo747]

What I find most disturbing is that without God as a guide you keep trying to find ways to justify evil acts. Is God really the only reason you behave?

Rape isn't beneficial to the survival of he human race as we can survive perfectly well without it. So the harm done is without any balancing positive.

Raping someone in a coma is a violation of their person with no benefit to them so is morally wrong, it also causes harm to society (a lack of trust in care) and has potential health impacts too.

The fact that I have to justify why raping someone in a coma is wrong making me slightly nauseous.

I'm not trying to justify evil acts - infact evil doesn't even exist in your view! I'm suggesting that in your position where you deny the existence of objective moral values you are supporting a highly inconsistent view of morality. In fact you can't even call it morality as you have no objective definition of right or wrong.

A lack of trust isn't detrimental to the survival of a species. At best you can say that rape isn't a very nice thing to do.

The concept may make you nauseous but your nausea surely must intensify when you realise that you can't even label the act as totally wrong!

 

[jamesaltria]

All religions are wrong. End of argument

 

[ringo747]

All religions are wrong. End of argument

So is the 'religion' you just defined then.

 

[RDM]

I'm not trying to justify evil acts - infact evil doesn't even exist in your view!

Why are you telling me what does and doesn't exist in my view? Armful acts can quite easily be labeled as evil. The fact that it doesn't fit in your definition of evil is irrelevant.

I'm suggesting that in your position where you deny the existence of objective moral values you are supporting a highly inconsistent view of morality. In fact you can't even call it morality as you have no objective definition of right or wrong.

Are we completely ignoring the existence of subjective morality or the ability to define morality based on harm? It seems to be somewhat better than your God defined objective morality as you seem to be unable to actually quantify it.

A lack of trust isn't detrimental to the survival of a species. At best you can say that rape isn't a very nice thing to do.

A lack of trust is very much detrimental to the survival of a social species such as man.

The concept may make you nauseous but your nausea surely must intensify when you realise that you can't even label the act as totally wrong!

I just have, it is you that seem to be unable to do it without God existing.

 

[RDM]

So is the 'religion' you just defined then.

That isn't a religion, it is a faith based position. They are very different.

 

[ringo747]

Why are you telling me what does and doesn't exist in my view? Armful acts can quite easily be labeled as evil. The fact that it doesn't fit in your definition of evil is irrelevant.

Sorry, define evil in your view then? Does evil even exist in your view? I don't believe so. It seems to me that harm done is the metric you use.

Are we completely ignoring the existence of subjective morality or the ability to define morality based on harm? It seems to be somewhat better than your God defined objective morality as you seem to be unable to actually quantify it.

(Again) Not doubting subjective morality. I'm saying that unless you have objective morality you can't say anything is really right or really wrong in a given scenario.

I just have, it is you that seem to be unable to do it without God existing.

Without God objective moral values and duties do not exist. Without objective moral values you can only say if something is harmful or socially unacceptable.

That isn't a religion, it is a faith based position. They are very different.

Isn't it man made? What's the difference?

 

[RDM]

Sorry, define evil in your view then?

Acts that cause excessive harm. With acts that cause harm being "bad".

Does evil even exist in your view?

Yes, as a man made construct, much like good, bad, love and hate. A word used to describe very harmful acts.

I don't believe so. It seems to me that harm done is the metric you use.

Looks like you believe wrong. You may not personally agree with the definition but that is an entirely different argument.

Your turn, define evil and how you know acts are evil.

(Again) Not doubting subjective morality. I'm saying that unless you have objective morality you can't say anything is really right or really wrong in a given scenario.

So you do accept subjective morality yet don't think you can call it morality, what else would you call it?

Without God objective moral values and duties do not exist. Without objective moral values you can only say if something is harmful or socially unacceptable.

Which you can equate to being moral.

Isn't it man made? What's the difference?

Because holding the faith based position that all religions are rubbish has none of the defining attributes of a religion. No belief systems, no cultural systems, no underlying spirituality or social codes.

 

[ringo747]

Acts that cause excessive harm. With acts that cause harm being "bad".

It may only seem 'bad' to you. Someone else may have a totally different opinion on it. Is it up to each person to decide how much harm will be done before doing a certain act?

Consider the following scenario...

If it is morally good to reduce harm and suffering, what happens if a society decides to obliterate Christians because it deems them harmful to that society, would that be the morally right thing to do?

Yes, as a man made construct, much like good, bad, love and hate. A word used to describe very harmful acts.

Why should we trust something based on human opinion. After all if we came about by evolution is our knowledge even reliable?

Your turn, define evil and how you know acts are evil.

Moral experience tells us that acts like rape, torture and murder are wrong. They aren't just harmful, they are moral abominations.

So you do accept subjective morality yet don't think you can call it morality, what else would you call it?

Morality deals with what is right and wrong. In a subjective sense I don't think you can even use these terms.

Because holding the faith based position that all religions are rubbish has none of the defining attributes of a religion. No belief systems, no cultural systems, no underlying spirituality or social codes.

Sounds to me like it has a belief system!

 

[RDM]

It may only seem 'bad' to you. Someone else may have a totally different opinion on it. Is it up to each person to decide how much harm will be done before doing a certain act?

As a social species we tend to decide these things as a group. However even in your worldview people pretty much still decide for themselves if they commit an act or not.

Consider the following scenario...

If it is morally good to reduce harm and suffering, what happens if a society decides to obliterate Christians because it deems them harmful to that society, would that be the morally right thing to do?

No because the harm done in obliterating Christians far outweighs the harm that comes from their beliefs.

Why should we trust something based on human opinion. After all if we came about by evolution is our knowledge even reliable?

Because it is all we have? Not to mention you trust human opinion in so many other things.

Moral experience tells us that acts like rape, torture and murder are wrong. They aren't just harmful, they are moral abominations.

That doesn't answer the question. It is somewhat self referential, an immoral act is immoral because it is immoral? Is homosexuality moral or not using your system?

Morality deals with what is right and wrong. In a subjective sense I don't think you can even use these terms.

Obviously I, and many others, do.

Sounds to me like it has a belief system!

It is certainly a belief, but I wouldn't call it a belief system. What is your definition of a religion and how does "I think all religions are rubbish" fit in to it?

 

[Jason2]

Again, why is rape wrong? The man committing the rape might find it good. How can you then say he is wrong, for there is no objective moral standard by which you could judge him.

Reasons for objective moral values:

• Universally across human cultures there exists some kind of basic morality.
• The very people who deny objective moral values live as if objective moral values exist.

What I find particularly fascinating by the first one is the existence and persistence of altruism throughout human cultures. There is no benefit to running into a burning building, or jumping into icy waters to save a child, yet this continues to happen on a daily basis. Richard Dawkins himself admits this and calls it an "evolutionary accident". But surely it should have been weeded out by now? Why hasn't natural selection dealt with it?

This is the one that interests me. The very atheists in this thread live as though they are bound by some kind of moral law. But what's interesting is that the moral relativist is motivated by self interest (at least in his mind). "If I did such and such it would make me feel bad" is what you often hear them say. But what about those times when you could really get away with something. You scratch someones car and no one is around to see, why not just drive on like it never happened? Can you really just explain your moral behaviour by saying "it would make me feel bad"? Or is it really that compulsion inside to do the "right" thing even when no one is watching?

In conclusion, no one is a moral relativist. We all know objective moral values exist, even if we deny it. If it was simply built into us by natural selection as an aid to survival then there should be no possibility to go against it. We would all just be mere robots. I could quite easily dismiss the existence of other minds just like myself. Yet I have no reason to believe this over the evidence that other minds do indeed exist.

Many have tried to abide by the moral law, all have failed, but one. There is nothing we can do to get right with God. All our works are but filthy rags. What we all need is a saviour. Jesus is that saviour.

 

[ringo747]

As a social species we tend to decide these things as a group. However even in your worldview people pretty much still decide for themselves if they commit an act or not.




No because the harm done in obliterating Christians far outweighs the harm that comes from their beliefs.



Because it is all we have? Not to mention you trust human opinion in so many other things.



That doesn't answer the question. It is somewhat self referential, an immoral act is immoral because it is immoral? Is homosexuality moral or not using your system?



Obviously I, and many others, do.



It is certainly a belief, but I wouldn't call it a belief system. What is your definition of a religion and how does "I think all religions are rubbish" fit in to it?

One question before I go to entertain my visitors for the evening...

If atheism were true, what would make harm/suffering objectively bad? Conscious creatures might not like harm, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively bad.

 

[RDM]

One question before I go to entertain my visitors for the evening...

If atheism were true, what would make harm/suffering objectively bad? Conscious creatures might not like harm, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively bad.

Sorry but so far all the question answering seems to be relatively one sided. I'll happily answer once you have answered my questions.