Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[ringo747]

Which is why I said I was agnostic to the position of objective morality. It will depend on how you define objective morality. If it does exist then I could see it being defined by harm.

Not really sure if I have ever claimed that I am?

Ok, my definition objective morality is that something is either really right or really wrong regardless of human opinion.

It seems such an unlikely situation that I am struggling to see its worth. The moral approach would be to find out why women have decided to abstain from intercourse and change that rather than just rape them.

Ok, and if you can't convince them to change then what? Harm done v flourishing of the species?

You seem to agree that rape is objectively wrong so the flourishing of the species is going to have to suffer. O wait, the flourishing of the species is your pillar of morality isn't it?

Nothing obligates you to do it. Is that really such a scary concept?

It is quite scary actually. If there are no moral obligations then it would effectively be a free-for-all. In other words, as long as the main aim of human flourishing is continued it doesn't matter.

Since when does atheism say we have no importance? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God not an overarching philosophy. Atheism has nothing to say on our importance or lack thereof.

Atheism says we are nothing but a by-product of evolution and we are no different from any other animal.

By being beneficial it is good? Not sure about you but I would quite like to continue living and also like my daughter to continue living. Contrary to popular religious beliefs atheists are not, on the whole nihilists.

Being beneficial is good in an objective sense?

You would first need to convince me that they are not connected.

Evolution is morally neutral.

You seem to be really keen on obligation. It isn't obligatory to do good things, but it is certainly beneficial.

Well I do believe that I have am obligated not to murder, rape etc. Don't you? If we are ought to do certain things that there must be some sort of authority surely.

Which seems to me that you actually have no objective reason for thinking homosexuality immoral as you seem to be unable to describe it. Which then makes me think that you have very little way of actually determining if there is an objective morality and if there is what it actually is.

Moral epistemology again. How we come to understand morality has no bearing on whether objective moral values and duties exist.

 

[crinkleshoes]

So if I was to come over and murder all your family it wouldn't be wrong, it would instead be socially unacceptable?

Correct. Or to twist the words slightly... it would be "socially" wrong.

OK... so if society says it's fine to murder then it must be right?

You are trying to seperate these things when they're not seperate... thing that are right or wrong are defined by society in general.

In an alternate universe where society has defined murder as ok, then they could consider it morally right.

Don't seperate it as open definition... it's causation, not active definition.

Given you defend rape in certain scenarios then I don't think any illustration would suffice for you.

I fail to see where I've ever defended rape... in fact I said quite the opposite... don't take my words out of context, I've only offered hypotheticals of alternate societies that could potentially define rape as acceptable. That's a very different thing.

In your moral relativist view, if someone in our society today believes rape is fine then that is fine in your view? You wouldn't go so far as to suggest rape is wrong regardless of human opinion?

No, the development of our society has followed such a path as to define rape as wrong. Therefore, it is wrong.

A minority would never change that, even if their views oppose ours.

It cannot be regardless of human opinion... it's linked directly to it as we have clearly defined it as wrong. No higher power has communicated this opinion to us, we have developed it and shared it amongst ourselves.

 

[Jason2]

Who are apes?

A white man is not an ape. A black man is not an ape. An ape is an ape.

So yes, you can (and should) get into trouble for calling a black man an ape.

That's pretty simple.

RDM said we are apes. Do you disagree with your fellow atheist?

 

[estebanrey]

RDM said we are apes. Do you disagree with your fellow atheist?

Humans and apes are both Hominoids but modern humans are not apes. Our ancestors would have belonged to the so-called "great apes" family though.

I'm confused by the "Do you disagree with your fellow atheist?" bit, why do atheists have to agree on zoological terms? Christians can't even agree on whether the Bible permits women bishops or gay marriage or not so why do you expect atheists to have to agree on a subject that doesn't have anything to do with atheism?

Jason2, you seem to have a very strange view of what you think an atheist is. You speak like all atheists have to be scientists, evolutionists and have a vast knowledge of astrophysics. You are making the mistake of thinking that because a lot of scientists are atheist, therefore all atheists must be scientists.

 

[Jason2]

Humans and apes are both Hominoids but modern humans are not apes. Our ancestors would have belonged to the so-called "great apes" family though.

I'm confused by the "Do you disagree with your fellow atheist?" bit, why do atheists have to agree on zoological terms? Christians can't even agree on whether the Bible permits women bishops or gay marriage or not so why do you expect atheists to have to agree on a subject that doesn't have anything to do with atheism?

Jason2, you seem to have a very strange view of what you think an atheist is. You speak like all atheists have to be scientists, evolutionists and have a vast knowledge of astrophysics. You are making the mistake of thinking that because a lot of scientists are atheist, therefore all atheists must be scientists.

I find it insulting that you think we evolved from the same ancestor as the apes. Where do I complain?

 

[ringo747]

Correct. Or to twist the words slightly... it would be "socially" wrong.

Ok, so it's only wrong based on the current society. Fine. What about the Holocaust do you think it was right given that the nazis believed it was?

I fail to see where I've ever defended rape... in fact I said quite the opposite... don't take my words out of context, I've only offered hypotheticals of alternate societies that could potentially define rape as acceptable. That's a very different thing.

You don't believe rape is wrong regardless of what society says? What about child abuse? If society said it was fine would you agree?

It cannot be regardless of human opinion... it's linked directly to it as we have clearly defined it as wrong. No higher power has communicated this opinion to us, we have developed it and shared it amongst ourselves.

If it is only human opinion then we can do what we want.

 

[estebanrey]

I find it insulting that you think we evolved from the same ancestor as the apes. Where do I complain?

I don't 'think' we evolved from the same ancestors as apes, I accept it's almost certain we did based on the available evidence .

 

[estebanrey]

ringo747, do you ever get bored of making the same "If you don't believe in a morally objective being, you must believe that mass genocide and rape is OK" argument?

I know I got bored of it 10 pages ago.

 

[ringo747]

ringo747, do you ever get bored of making the same "If you don't believe in a morally objective being, you must believe that mass genocide and rape is OK" argument?

I know I got bored of it 10 pages ago.

I have to write something while waiting for your reply on the question of the probability of Gods existence about 20 pages ago.

Additionally, the statement you quote me with isn't what I have been saying at all.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Ok, so it's only wrong based on the current society. Fine. What about the Holocaust do you think it was right given that the nazis believed it was?

I think you would find most thought it was wrong but were unwilling to descent through fear.

You don't believe rape is wrong regardless of what society says? What about child abuse? If society said it was fine would you agree?

I've never said that - quite the opposite - something you've even quoted... I DO believe rape is wrong.

But I'm willing to admit that belief has most likely come from social conditioning and not any inherent/genetic sense of right and wrong.

I don't think you understand my argument.

If society had developed in such a way to make child abuse ok, then we would likely not think any differently and see it as ok too. These social impressions take 100s/1000s of years to develop and would have to come from the population en-masse.

It used to be fine in society... as recently as Victorian times!

If it is only human opinion then we can do what we want.

If it was something that changed on a whim, then perhaps... thankfully that's not the way it works. Another comment of yours that shows the crux of my explanation has gone completely over your head.

But in essence yes, we CAN do whatever we want... there will be no "punishment" for it.

Thankfully human benevolence appears to outweigh our harsher qualities.

 

[zenf]

Try reading my posts properly before posting these baseless accusations.

How ironic... Try reading the question properly next time. Here it is again for you.

You believe objective moral values exist, but you acknowledge that people can't know what they are and there's no way to determine them. What bloody good are they?

Where did I say people can't know what moral values are? I don't hold that view and I don't know anyone that does.

Oh, so you believe people DO know what the objective moral values actually are, as set by God? Please could you list them for us? Or are you talking about subjective moral values now?

I have stated that the question of how we come to understand moral values and duties is moral epistemology. I have already stated on this very page that moral experience alone tells us that some acts are right and wrong.

We learn from moral experience you say? There's nothing objective about that, everyone clearly has different moral experience and your idea that homosexuality is wrong illustrates that well.

Your idea of objective moral values is completely flawed. All you seem to be able to say is "I believe they exist", but that's where it ends. It's utterly pointless.

 

[estebanrey]

Ringo747, to turn the tables round quickly....

If you were born 200 hundred years ago, do you honestly think you would hold the same moral values you do today?

 

[Jason2]

The childishness depicted in the old testement is laughable.

That's why Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies.

 

[ringo747]

You believe objective moral values exist, but you acknowledge that people can't know what they are and there's no way to determine them. What bloody good are they?

No I don't believe that they are unknowable. Where did I say that?

Oh, so you believe people DO know what the objective moral values actually are, as set by God? Please could you list them for us? Or are you talking about subjective moral values now?

You are talking about moral epistemology like so many of your friends. Objective moral values can exist regardless of whether I understand them or not.

We learn from moral experience you say? There's nothing objective about that, everyone clearly has different moral experience and your idea that homosexuality is wrong illustrates that well.

This is moral epistemology again. Everyone obviously doesn't adhere to the same thing. That doesn't affect in any way the ontological question of what is the foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Your idea of objective moral values is completely flawed. All you seem to be able to say is "I believe they exist", but that's where it ends. It's utterly pointless.

What is flawed about it? My premise is simply that objective moral values and duties exist. Objective morality being defined as something being really right/wrong regardless of human opinion. Interesting that even Sam Harris who pretty much hates anything to do with religion acknowledges the existence of objective moral values.

If you want to find out about moral epistemology then Google is your friend. It's a completely different topic.

Ringo747, to turn the tables round quickly....

If you were born 200 hundred years ago, do you honestly think you would hold the same moral values you do today?

That's a question of moral epistemology i.e. how do we know the moral values and duties that we have. I'm open to whatever theories you have on epistemology. This isn't what I'm arguing though.

So, still waiting to hear how you calculated the probability of God existing to back up your claim that "it is more than likely that God doesn't exist".

 

[crinkleshoes]

Sure, objective morals CAN exist... No matter how unlikely, thats the point of probabilities. But who's to say anyone knows what they are, perhaps your favourite subjects... Rape and child molestation are, in fact, morally right and we have interpreted our feelings incorrectly?

Like has been said many times above, there's no point in talking about an unknowable ideal, only reality... At least some of us are willing to accept how fickle human behaviour is... We are still part of the animal kingdom... Sure we have come a long way.

But I'm afraid living in an idealistic theistic fantasy world will not get you or the rest of the human race very far at all.

 

[estebanrey]

That's a question of moral epistemology i.e. how do we know the moral values and duties that we have. I'm open to whatever theories you have on epistemology. This isn't what I'm arguing though.

So, still waiting to hear how you calculated the probability of God existing to back up your claim that "it is more than likely that God doesn't exist".

This is brilliant. You avoid my question and then try and have a go at me for not answering one you asked 10 pages ago.

The reason I didn't answer is because I never claimed I had a formula for calculating God's existence.

 

[ringo747]

Sure, objective morals CAN exist... No matter how unlikely, thats the point of probabilities. But who's to say anyone knows what they are, perhaps your favourite subjects... Rape and child molestation are, in fact, morally right and we have interpreted our feelings incorrectly?

Like has been said many times above, there's no point in talking about an unknowable ideal, only reality... At least some of us are willing to accept how fickle human behaviour is... We are still part of the animal kingdom... Sure we have come a long way.

But I'm afraid living in an idealistic theistic fantasy world will not get you or the rest of the human race very far at all.

Seriously crinkle, the statement I am making about objective moral values and duties doesn't even mention God so why do you think it is an idealistic theistic fantasy to believe that some things are objectively wrong regardless of human opinion.

Many atheists believe in objective moral values so I don't see your problem.

The reason I didn't answer is because I never claimed I had a formula for calculating God's existence.

So your claim was just baseless then. Fair enough.

 

[crinkleshoes]

How about you ignore the 1 word from my post you have replied to and re-read it... Then actually respond to the points made instead of ignoring them?

Whether its theistic or not is irrelevant... It's still a fantasy land

 

[Jason2]

How about you ignore the 1 word from my post you have replied to and re-read it... Then actually respond to the points made instead of ignoring them?

Whether its theistic or not is irrelevant... It's still a fantasy land

It may be a fantasy for you, but it's a reality for people like myself.

 

[ringo747]

How about you ignore the 1 word from my post you have replied to and re-read it... Then actually respond to the points made instead of ignoring them?

Whether its theistic or not is irrelevant... It's still a fantasy land

What part are you wanting me to read.. please quote or highlight it.

So you just added theistic into your statement for no reason. There must be a lot of people on this planet in fantasy land then.