Is one religion better than the other.. and if so....

[Segev Moran]

Expressions of different cultures. Isn't that how religions start? People want to answer questions, so they try to figure stuff out. Which is then informed by their cultural values or vice versa?

I Agree,
My POV is the same, that religion (any), is nothing more than a social and cultural result of people trying to figure out things.

Also, not all religions are scripture based. For example many Hindus regularly ignore scripture if it seems too outdated.

Even though, the fundamentals of their religion are based on ideas from the scriptures.
Its the same for Christians. Many find the NT to be "outdated" so they choose to omit some parts from their beliefs.. yet the fundamental Christianity is based on Jesus and the resurrection.

That's a very..........Abrahamic approach. People follow or don't follow religion depending on what works for them. That can't be a sin, imo, it's just people following their personalities. I mean following tradition out of familial duty might be involved depending on the person's circumstance. But people should not be condemned for doing what makes them happy or feel fulfilled intellectually or spiritually or both.

I Agree the term Sin is Abrahamic... I Used it only for convenience.. It could be just the same using the terms Enlightenment or divinity or wholeness or whatever.

Really? I find that's really only the case with some Abrahamics. Not all, but some. Most Easterners and Pagans are pretty chill about the whole "truth" thing. I mean sibling rivalry between the sects notwithstanding, one person's "truth" is another's silly superstition.

Have you ever met someone that told you their religion is not necessarily true? If so, I think they are 80% on their way to atheism

Humans are pretty faulty. Ethics and morality should depend on many factors. For example, if this thief who keeps the Sabbath only steals to feed him/herself or his/her family, then is it really theft? Or mere survival? A thief is not necessarily a bad person.

Agreed. I Also think that morality and ethics are human definitions for human actions.

 

[Segev Moran]

A lower sense of ethics.
A lesser compassion for others.
But it is more than those as well.

So again...

If you say a horse is lower than a dog..
What does it mean exactly?
Lower in what sense?

 

[SomeRandom]

I Agree,
My POV is the same, that religion (any), is nothing more than a social and cultural result of people trying to figure out things.

Culture is a powerful force. I think it's influence is sometimes over and underestimated lol

Even though, the fundamentals of their religion are based on ideas from the scriptures.
Its the same for Christians. Many find the NT to be "outdated" so they choose to omit some parts from their beliefs.. yet the fundamental Christianity is based on Jesus and the resurrection.

Well.........sort of. Whilst Christians tend to look towards their scripture for morality, Hindus instead look towards life and experience (the experiential part is debated among the sects. The Shaktis for example think the old school Brahmans don't focus on it enough.)
The importance and interpretation of scripture are fundamental opposites, when you are talking about the Abrahamics and the Dharmics. The Abrahamics want the world to conform to scripture, the Dharmics meanwhile want scripture to conform to the world. (I am speaking generally of course.)

Have you ever met someone that told you their religion is not necessarily true? If so, I think they are 80% on their way to atheism

Frequently. Ironically mostly among the Pundits (priestly peeps.) Truth is overrated and a word overused I find.

Agreed. I Also think that morality and ethics are human definitions for human actions.

Exactly. Ethics and morality can't be clear cut, life is rarely that at all.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If all religions are manmade and not divine then which ever false religion does the most good and least evil is the best.

Yup.

However if you claim that all religions are manmade because no God exists then you have ruled out the only foundation possible where actual moral good and evil can even exist

Still don't understand why people think that. I'm a theist and even I can see that if want to call something good or bad, we can JUSTIFY it, not by reading about what someone thought about God's opinion, but by studying the ramifications.

since without God the entire category of objective morality ceases to exist.

"Objective" morality would exist whether God did or not. If God's whim is all you need to label things morally, then it is SUBJECTIVE.

Once you have attempted to smuggle in moral values which cannot possibly exist without God

Great biblical values like bigotry, genocide, rape, torture, etc?

it is reasonable to assume that any good God would produce a single true revelation instead of allowing each religion to have only a few distinct bits of truth buried under mountains of man made garbage and since most religions make claims that contradict other faiths then the religion which is the Actually, no.

By the measure you judge are you judged. I would expect God to have messages that apply to the particular situation. Only the intellectual lazy insist on one-size-fits-all solutions.

However if you claim that all religions are manmade because no God exists then you have ruled out the only foundation possible where actual moral good and evil can even exist

Still don't understand why people think that. I'm a theist and even I can see that if want to call something good or bad, we can JUSTIFY it, not by reading about what someone thought about God's opinion, but by studying the ramifications.

since without God the entire category of objective morality ceases to exist.

"Objective" morality would exist whether God did or not. If God's whim is all you need to label things morally, then it is SUBJECTIVE.

Once you have attempted to smuggle in moral values which cannot possibly exist without God

Great biblical values like bigotry, genocide, rape, torture, etc?

it is reasonable to assume that any good God would produce a single true revelation instead of allowing each religion to have only a few distinct bits of truth buried under mountains of man made garbage and since most religions make claims that contradict other faiths then the religion which is the Actually, no.

By the measure you judge are you judged. I would expect God to have messages that apply to the particular situation. Only the intellectual lazy insist on one-size-fits-all solutions.

2. For example if you said torturing children was morally wrong and another person said it was morally good. Who is right?

You've read the bible, right? You realize it states quite clearly that bratty kids should be killed, right?

I consider abortion for convenience morally wrong.

God says it's okay for a paranoid man to accuse his wife of sleeping around and take her to priests who will try to induce an abortion to "prove" she was a whore.

However Jainism is such a minor and obscure religion that it is not on my radar very often so if your knowledgeable about it then maybe this is an opportunity for me to examine it in depth.

However, Christianity is such a minor and obscure religion that it is not on my radar (said basically everyone in the first century).

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So again...

If you say a horse is lower than a dog..
What does it mean exactly?
Lower in what sense?

Aesthetically.

Often there is a thick grey line between ethics and aesthetics.

A clearer example is that a Leopard is higher than a hyena
because the leopard mostly kills instantly, whereas the hyena
will often chew the leg off prey whilst it is still alive, then leave it to suffer.

Which would you rather be? Leopard or Hyena?
Which would you rather be eaten by?

 

[Segev Moran]

Aesthetically.

Often there is a thick grey line between ethics and aesthetics.

A clearer example is that a Leopard is higher than a hyena
because the leopard mostly kills instantly, whereas the hyena
will often chew the leg off prey whilst it is still alive, then leave it to suffer.

Which would you rather be? Leopard or Hyena?
Which would you rather be eaten by?

Again,
I Can understand what you are saying in terms of some behaviors might seem with lower "Morality"...Like the Hyna leaving it's prey to suffer and die slowly.
But the Hyna itself is far from being Lower than a leopard.
A lion BTW, eats it's own Cubs... So what? does that make him a lower form of a being???
What about social spiders? they are far more advanced than almost any other animal in nature in terms of sociability...
So again,
Each animal, has its better sides and lesser sides of behavior.. that doesn't make it a lower being of life.
Which animal BTW (just out of curiosity) would you consider second to Humans?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Have you ever met someone that told you their religion is not necessarily true? If so, I think they are 80% on their way to atheism

I can accept that my religion (my religious views) may not necessarily be true. Hell, I'll challenge (and have challenged) everything in my search for knowledge/Truth (if there is such a thing as Truth)! But I don't think that means I am 80% on my way to atheism! It just means I am willing to challenge things, and to accept that I am only human and I don't have all the answers. And I'm pretty sure I've met other people who hold to a religion who will also accept that they could be wrong (in thinking that their religion is true).

 

[Segev Moran]

I can accept that my religion (my religious views) may not necessarily be true. Hell, I'll challenge (and have challenged) everything in my search for knowledge/Truth (if there is such a thing as Truth)! But I don't think that means I am 80% on my way to atheism! It just means I am willing to challenge things, and to accept that I am only human and I don't have all the answers. And I'm pretty sure I've met other people who hold to a religion who will also accept that they could be wrong (in thinking that their religion is true).

Can you give me an example of a time you challenged your religion?
An even more interesting.. how did you manage to satisfy the doubt or not?
If not, what happened with your belief in that specific something?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can you give me an example of a time you challenged your religion?
An even more interesting.. how did you manage to satisfy the doubt or not?
If not, what happened with your belief in that specific something?

Well, I challenge my beliefs every day (e.g. does God really exist, do I really exist, maybe Muhammad (pbuh) wasn't the last Prophet, am I insane in believing the things I do?). As for one (fairly big) example, I was born a Christian (notionally, and unlike my folks, became a pretty strongly practicing one, for a while). I ain't anymore (by any stretch of the imagination). How did I get from there to here? Lots of thinking, reading and talking to many, many different people (priests, theologians/scholars and 'ordinary' believers and disbelievers), and generally just exploring life and 'experiencing' the world (in all its beauty and ugliness!). That still continues.

 

[Segev Moran]

Well, I challenge my beliefs every day (e.g. does God really exist, do I really exist, maybe Muhammad (pbuh) wasn't the last Prophet, am I insane in believing the things I do?). As for one (fairly big) example, I was born a Christian (notionally, and unlike my folks, became a pretty strongly practicing one, for a while). I ain't anymore (by any stretch of the imagination). How did I get from there to here? Lots of thinking, reading and talking to many, many different people (priests, theologians/scholars and 'ordinary' believers and disbelievers), and generally just exploring life and 'experiencing' the world (in all its beauty and ugliness!). That still continues.

That my friend is the path to secular thinking!
I Assume the things you left behind are mostly fundamentals or literal meaning from scriptures.
If I have to guess, I can assume you found your own interpretations to things you learn about your religion.
I Think it will be safe to say that the more you will become scientifically educated, the less you will practice religious ideas.
I Really believe that once someone really studies science and not listening to misconceptions made by religious leaders about science (take the "Big bang" as an example, that is wrongly used by vast majority of theists I have ever talked or listened to).
Many theist debaters dismiss the big bang without even knowing what it actually is.
I Learn new things every day! there is so much I don't understand yet, but the more I do, the stronger my understanding how religion is an abusive and misleading idea.
It has it's benefits, that's obvious. yet the wrongs are exceeding the rights.
If I could give you some advice, it would be to listen to people with a bit more scientific POV. Listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson for example, or Brian Cox.. These are scientists that are not as aggressive towards religion as Dawkins or Harris (and others).
You will find amazing things and ideas that are far more wondrous and awing than religion.
The trick is though, NOT TO TAKE THEIR WORD!!! Don't say, Oh.. if he claims it, it must be true! Study science the same way you study religion...
I Think understanding science can broaden up your world view and make you a much wiser believer.

 

[Muffled]

Thanks.
Its nice to know that others believe my karma is good.

I believe it has nothing to do with your karma. It is simply a physical impossibility for you to be a cockroach.

 

[Muffled]

Well my current cat is my previous cat re-incarnated.
They have identical personalities, and I even found her newest incarnation
on the grave of the previous incarnation precisely one year after she died.
Though this time she opted for shorter fur so as not to annoy me with incessant licking.

I believe cats have brains and personalities based on that but that has nothing to do with spirits. It just means that you got two cats with similar brains.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

That my friend is the path to secular thinking!

Not necessarily!

I Assume the things you left behind are mostly fundamentals or literal meaning from scriptures.

It depends what you mean by 'fundamentals'. But yes, I often have a non-literal interpretation of holy books.

If I have to guess, I can assume you found your own interpretations to things you learn about your religion.

You got that right!

I Think it will be safe to say that the more you will become scientifically educated, the less you will practice religious ideas.
I Really believe that once someone really studies science and not listening to misconceptions made by religious leaders about science (take the "Big bang" as an example, that is wrongly used by vast majority of theists I have ever talked or listened to).
Many theist debaters dismiss the big bang without even knowing what it actually is.
I Learn new things every day! there is so much I don't understand yet, but the more I do, the stronger my understanding how religion is an abusive and misleading idea.
It has it's benefits, that's obvious. yet the wrongs are exceeding the rights.
If I could give you some advice, it would be to listen to people with a bit more scientific POV. Listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson for example, or Brian Cox.. These are scientists that are not as aggressive towards religion as Dawkins or Harris (and others).
You will find amazing things and ideas that are far more wondrous and awing than religion.
The trick is though, NOT TO TAKE THEIR WORD!!! Don't say, Oh.. if he claims it, it must be true! Study science the same way you study religion...
I Think understanding science can broaden up your world view and make you a much wiser believer.

This one, not so much. I am a scientist by training, and indeed mix with other scientists all the time in the course of my work (I work in the field of university research, and I can assure you I take just the same kind of critical approach to scientific questions as to religion!). It is definitely the case that the sciences have enriched my worldview. But far from taking me on a path away from religion, the sciences have given me a fuller and deeper understanding of the big questions and informed my very particular take on my religion (which doesn't really fit any standard mould, but comes closest to certain heterodox approaches to Islaam).

 

[1robin]

Are you referring to natural/physical laws above?

Yes, because if moral laws exist (and I think the evidence for their existence is far better than the evidence they do not) they are supernatural (transcend nature). There are no objective moral duties unless God exists.

What do you mean by 'the divine' above?

Unless some reason exists to delineate it further then I mean the supernatural is the divine. Maybe once I see where your going I may be able to be more specific.

Why Christianity? Other religions can provide these foundations too.

Well I believe that the evidence for the Bible's claims vastly exceeds the evidence for any competing faith. However the evidence I am referring to would and has required libraries to hold it all. I cannot discuss the evidence for the bibles being true and anything else, it is just too much to tackle. So please limit what you wish to discuss with me. However for the point I made the only issue is whether biblical morality is better that a lack of objective moral facts. That is all that is necessary for my point to be true.

Are you saying without God existing or without believing that God exists here?

With God the moral ideas that most of us live by has a foundation in moral fact, without God we lack any foundation to assert that any moral ideals anyone has correspond to a single objective moral truth. That does not mean we cannot act as if they did even if they don't, which I touched on previously. I made an ontological point to which you asked an epistemological question about.

Why does God have to exist to give societies the moral absolutes they require?

Because without God no moral absolutes exist or can exist.

Why, necessarily?

Since the atheistic worldview excludes any possible objective foundation for moral duties then we lack any actual moral duty.

Why?

Have you ever studied divine command theory? The reason I ask, is to see how much I need to explain. Without God there is exists no objective moral truth to settle who's moral opinion is right (if any one of them are). So we would have 6 billion opinions (none of whom are "right" because there exists no "right" for them to be) and no objective standard by which to differentiate which one is true because none of them are. So we would merely have 6 billions opinions that are all equally wrong yet equally valid. If that is not ANARCHY, then we need to get rid of the word.

I will for now show what you asked by asking you a question. Can you prove that any moral action what so ever is actually wrong without appealing to something beyond the material world? If you can't, and believe me you can't then by default you have your answer.

What about more than one god (or goddess)? Or some other supernatural force? Why 'God'?

This is another subject. If you want to switch gears away from morality and instead discuss the evidence for which God or Gods has the greatest amount of evidence and argumentation for their existence that's fine, but I can't do both. I was not really making a point about any particular God beyond a broad category here but I can be far more specific as to why the Biblical God far outstrips any other concept of God in reasons to believe it exists compered to all others.

 

[loverofhumanity]

My understanding is that each religion was meant for a certain age and period after which it decayed and fell into rituals and meaningless practices and no longer benefited society much but I believe also that because of this fact, religions are renewed from age to age. So each religion was the right one for its time.

If you study the Holy Books of all the major Faiths which had a Teacher or Messiah figure Who brought a Book you will find in every one of them, prophecies of the return of their Teacher or the Coming of another Messiah.

This is part of each religion as it is expected after a time that the religion will wither and die spiritually although it keeps its outward name. And that is what has happened so what we have now is religions that have decayed and no longer give light.

What people reject is the decayed form of religion which is all around us. Islam is over 1,400 years old, Christianity 2,000 and and the others even older so it's unreasonable to expect them to maintain their purity over so long a period.

Religion needs to be renewed, so a Teacher or Educator brings a religion which will bring laws and teachings relevant for that age. Today is the age of the unity of mankind, the equality of men and women, harmony of science and religion and the oneness of religion and oneness of mankind so Baha'u'llah has appeared.

From Scriptures as old as the Bhagavad-Gita we see this continuous process of the decay and renewal of religion.

"To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium." Bhgavad-Gita ch 4:8

 

[1robin]

Yup.

I agree with you when you agreed with me here.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, which Phoenix are you the Kelly of?

Still don't understand why people think that. I'm a theist and even I can see that if want to call something good or bad, we can JUSTIFY it, not by reading about what someone thought about God's opinion, but by studying the ramifications.

Well if God does not exist then there exists no objective goal for actions to correspond to. It is more than just the fact that a moral edict lacks a foundation without God 9the entire categories of truth that contain actual wrong and right no longer exist). It is that no objective purpose exists without God. For example if an atheist says that human flourishing is the objective goal for all laws. No it isn't, that's just their preference as to what a goal for morality should be, without there actually being an objective fact for their preference to correspond to. IOW is Hitler's, Stalin's, or Mother Theresa's purpose for morality the one we should take. Without God there is no actual fact of the matter by which to judge who is right, only other opinions, and the circle of futility just keeps going around.

"Objective" morality would exist whether God did or not. If God's whim is all you need to label things morally, then it is SUBJECTIVE.

Mercy that's a lot of wrong in a few statements. 1. God's morality does not flow from his commands but from his eternal nature. If that is not objective then remove that word from the dictionary. 2. In reality the word objective as it concerns morality is a moral duty that is not derived from the opinions of it's adherents. 3. God's moral commands are not even his opinions but flow from his nature which have never ever been untrue or subjective

Great biblical values like bigotry, genocide, rape, torture, etc?

Your a theist? Of which God, Pol Pot. Before your train gets too far away from the station of truth you might want to first demonstrate that the God I believe in and the one your describing are the same, then prove you made justified accusations. However even if you did (and you won't) my point would still stand. What God's nature makes wrong and right would remain the same and absolute whether you liked them or not. God did not command genocide but even if he did what he commanded would still be right.

Please look up divine command theory. It will save you a lot of the confusion you seem to be having. Your preference determines the nature of nothing.

By the measure you judge are you judged. I would expect God to have messages that apply to the particular situation. Only the intellectual lazy insist on one-size-fits-all solutions.

I imagine you would like a God who's morals change over time. That would allow you to do and think exactly what you prefer and claim God agreed with it. My God on the other hand does not change to align it's self with my preference nor does he change over time. My God invented time and is not ruled by it. It appears you created a God in you image instead of the other way around. Your God is too small, you need to trade up.

Still don't understand why people think that. I'm a theist and even I can see that if want to call something good or bad, we can JUSTIFY it, not by reading about what someone thought about God's opinion, but by studying the ramifications.

This is a carbon copy of your earlier identical statements.

"Objective" morality would exist whether God did or not. If God's whim is all you need to label things morally, then it is SUBJECTIVE.

This is another carbon copy. Please do not take up my time with repeating what you said earlier.

Great biblical values like bigotry, genocide, rape, torture, etc?

Ok, I am going to stop reading at this point since you seem to be repeating your self.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

With God the moral ideas that most of us live by has a foundation in moral fact, without God we lack any foundation to assert that any moral ideals anyone has correspond to a single objective moral truth. That does not mean we cannot act as if they did even if they don't, which I touched on previously. I made an ontological point to which you asked an epistemological question about.

Because without God no moral absolutes exist or can exist.

Since the atheistic worldview excludes any possible objective foundation for moral duties then we lack any actual moral duty.

This is presuming that might makes right, that a moral authority comes by any quality of age, intelligence, strength, law, etc. I don't. Therefore I can just as easily conclude that a god or gods view on morality is just as POV based and subject to that POV.

I also am inclined to point out that having a god does not mean a. That god is a moral authority b. The word of that god is recorded correctly. c. The believer picks the correct revealed text or teaching. d. The interpretation of the reader of that word is correct and thus can say that even if I did believe a god were a moral authority, all believers in that god were still acting upon their own personal interpretation of that god's wishes. And it's been shown scientifically that when believers are asked 'What would Jesus do' they do not reach for the memory centers of their brain, as you would when recalling a command, but they reach for their opinions to find their moral compass ( http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.abstract ). Thus, still subjective.

Finally, the atheistic worldview does not exclude objective foundations. Most atheists I know are some form of consequentialist, which judge the value of behaviors and moral positions based on objective measure of their impact the balance of happiness and reduced suffering in a given society. While most acknowledge that individual perspective makes margin for error (and I'll remind that religious have margin for error too, see above), the process by which they make moral judgments isn't arbitrary.

Here is an excellent video series that explains logical morality from atheistic worldview: http://viewpure.com/7iRCexvcDS8?start=0&end=0

 

[1robin]

This is presuming that might makes right, that a moral authority comes by any quality of age, intelligence, strength, law, etc. I don't. Therefore I can just as easily conclude that a god or gods view on morality is just as POV based and subject to that POV.

You are a little mixed up here.

1. Might only applies to enforcement. I did not say anything about whether God being powerful makes anything he demands true.
2. Your also confusing what I stated to show that God's morality is objective with what it takes for his morality to exist. I assumed his existence as part of an "if then" argument.
3. I also pointed out in exactly what way it is that I meant it is objective in that those duties which his nature imposes on us are not products of the adherents opinions. I do not think that God's moral nature is subjective in any way nor does there exist anyway anything could be more objective but I did state in exact what way I meant objective in my claim.
4. However just for the heck of it lets go beyond the way I used objective. If the God of the bible exists then God's nature is not the product of anyone's opinion (including his own) and has never not existed. God holds sovereignty over every event, every entity, and all truth. It is the primal truth from whom all contingent truth has it's foundation and meaning. That is why Jesus told Pilate that he himself was THE truth, not A truth. If you think any objective fact what so ever exists then God's claim to objective truth is infinitely greater. If you do not agree then please petition Webster to remove the meaningless word "objective" from the dictionary because it has no meaning in your world.

I also am inclined to point out that having a god does not mean a. That god is a moral authority b. The word of that god is recorded correctly. c. The believer picks the correct revealed text or teaching. d. The interpretation of the reader of that word is correct and thus can say that even if I did believe a god were a moral authority, all believers in that god were still acting upon their own personal interpretation of that god's wishes. And it's been shown scientifically that when believers are asked 'What would Jesus do' they do not reach for the memory centers of their brain, as you would when recalling a command, but they reach for their opinions to find their moral compass ( http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.abstract ). Thus, still subjective.

You misunderstood again. In what you quoted I was not inferring to any random concept of God. In the concept of God I have faith in, the answers are provided in the characteristics I found preexisting in the Bible's description of God. I can give you an avalanche of reasons why I believe that God exists but that is another and very involved issue. The God I believe in is the highest possible moral authority (not even a theoretical God can have greater claim). Then you launched into the grossly mistaken (but always expected) response to a point about moral ontology with an argument from moral epistemology. (in fact a Christian can do nothing to stop this mistake from occurring, I used to explain upfront the thing that should not be stated in response, it didn't help so I gave it up). Nothing I have said is the slightest bit affected by what humans do. It is irrelevant to what I claimed if anyone ever recorded God correctly, transmitted the Bible perfectly, or chose scriptures incorrectly. With the exception of the Bible's description of God my points are still as inevitably true even if the Bible did not exist.

Also, your link is irrelevant because it is also only relevant if I had made an epistemological argument which I didn't. I made an ontological argument which even if the conclusions at your link were true they would not apply. I did not say humanity got God's morality wrong or right because it does not matter in this context. If any moral intuition any person has actually corresponds to a single actual moral fact then God must exist. If he does not then no objective moral facts can possibly exist and everyone is necessary wrong. Only with God does any objective right exist for anyone to be.

Finally, the atheistic worldview does not exclude objective foundations. Most atheists I know are some form of consequentialist, which judge the value of behaviors and moral positions based on objective measure of their impact the balance of happiness and reduced suffering in a given society. While most acknowledge that individual perspective makes margin for error (and I'll remind that religious have margin for error too, see above), the process by which they make moral judgments isn't arbitrary.

Consequences are irrelevant, any specific behavior is irrelevant, margins of error, and 6 billion different preferences and opinions about what morals are right and which are wrong are irrelevant. I am discussing what is necessary for anyone's moral opinion to correspond to a single objective moral fact, or another way of saying it, what God's existence and absence would mean concerning moralities existence. Virtually nothing you have said or the links you have provided have applied to those arguments.

Here is an excellent video series that explains logical morality from atheistic worldview: http://viewpure.com/7iRCexvcDS8?start=0&end=0

I read your link, it does not apply. Unfortunately I debate at work when not busy and we have a DOD server which does not allow me to look up videos but this maybe a good thing because you do not see to understand what I was saying.

Please look up: Mallum en se', Mallum prohibitum, divine command theory, and moral epistemology v/s moral ontology. It will save us a lot of time if you wish to discuss this issue. So far I spent all my time trying to untangle what I was saying from what you thought I did. If you care about this issue reading about the issues I listed should interest you and you can get the basics concerning all 4 in less than an hour. Please feel free to ask me about them if you do not understand them.

If your sincere about these things I will even find good links for those 4 subjects and provide them to you, but I do not want to spend days re-inventing the wheel here.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You are a little mixed up here.

1. Might only applies to enforcement. I did not say anything about whether God being powerful makes anything he demands true.
2. Your also confusing what I stated to show that God's morality is objective with what it takes for his morality to exist. I assumed his existence as part of an "if then" argument.
3. I also pointed out in exactly what way it is that I meant it is objective in that those duties which his nature imposes on us are not products of the adherents opinions. I do not think that God's moral nature is subjective in any way nor does there exist anyway anything could be more objective but I did state in exact what way I meant objective in my claim.
4. However just for the heck of it lets go beyond the way I used objective. If the God of the bible exists then God's nature is not the product of anyone's opinion (including his own) and has never not existed. God holds sovereignty over every event, every entity, and all truth. It is the primal truth from whom all contingent truth has it's foundation and meaning. That is why Jesus told Pilate that he himself was THE truth, not A truth. If you think any objective fact what so ever exists then God's claim to objective truth is infinitely greater. If you do not agree then please petition Webster to remove the meaningless word "objective" from the dictionary because it has no meaning in your world.

You misunderstood again. In what you quoted I was not inferring to any random concept of God. In the concept of God I have faith in, the answers are provided in the characteristics I found preexisting in the Bible's description of God. I can give you an avalanche of reasons why I believe that God exists but that is another and very involved issue. The God I believe in is the highest possible moral authority (not even a theoretical God can have greater claim). Then you launched into the grossly mistaken (but always expected) response to a point about moral ontology with an argument from moral epistemology. (in fact a Christian can do nothing to stop this mistake from occurring, I used to explain upfront the thing that should not be stated in response, it didn't help so I gave it up). Nothing I have said is the slightest bit affected by what humans do. It is irrelevant to what I claimed if anyone ever recorded God correctly, transmitted the Bible perfectly, or chose scriptures incorrectly. With the exception of the Bible's description of God my points are still as inevitably true even if the Bible did not exist.

Also, your link is irrelevant because it is also only relevant if I had made an epistemological argument which I didn't. I made an ontological argument which even if the conclusions at your link were true they would not apply. I did not say humanity got God's morality wrong or right because it does not matter in this context. If any moral intuition any person has actually corresponds to a single actual moral fact then God must exist. If he does not then no objective moral facts can possibly exist and everyone is necessary wrong. Only with God does any objective right exist for anyone to be.

Consequences are irrelevant, any specific behavior is irrelevant, margins of error, and 6 billion different preferences and opinions about what morals are right and which are wrong are irrelevant. I am discussing what is necessary for anyone's moral opinion to correspond to a single objective moral fact, or another way of saying it, what God's existence and absence would mean concerning moralities existence. Virtually nothing you have said or the links you have provided have applied to those arguments.

I read your link, it does not apply. Unfortunately I debate at work when not busy and we have a DOD server which does not allow me to look up videos but this maybe a good thing because you do not see to understand what I was saying.

Please look up: Mallum en se', Mallum prohibitum, divine command theory, and moral epistemology v/s moral ontology. It will save us a lot of time if you wish to discuss this issue. So far I spent all my time trying to untangle what I was saying from what you thought I did. If you care about this issue reading about the issues I listed should interest you and you can get the basics concerning all 4 in less than an hour. Please feel free to ask me about them if you do not understand them.

If your sincere about these things I will even find good links for those 4 subjects and provide them to you, but I do not want to spend days re-inventing the wheel here.

I have looked at it, I do not agree with it, because I don't feel it can be substantiated in any reasonable way. There is no moral argument that is not epistemological, because there is no demonstrable 'moral fact' or 'moral authority' independent of mind. All morals are how we perceive it, man and gods alike.

The highest possible moral authority is reason based on outcome, everything else is just an assumption.

 

[1robin]

I have looked at it, I do not agree with it, because I don't feel it can be substantiated in any reasonable way. There is no moral argument that is not epistemological, because there is no demonstrable 'moral fact' or 'moral authority' independent of mind. All morals are how we perceive it, man and gods alike.

The highest possible moral authority is reason based on outcome, everything else is just an assumption.

I asked you to look up 5 subjects. You replied with an objection about substantiation which tells me you did not spend much time on any of them. 4 were definitions that have existed for a thousand years or more and even if they required substantiation (which they do not) then a thousand years of use is as much substantiation as you could hope for, but I only wanted you to know what they were, not your agreement with them. The last one was an argument I only wanted you to be familiar with. I want you to know the 4 definitions for the terms I listed to save time in discussing the issue but let me say something about the issue of divine command theory. I do not believe your objection to the 5th issue is even relevant. If divine command theory has any weakness it is not lacking substantiation. The philosophic principles involved are iron clad and have no possibility of being wrong if God exists. Yes that is a bold claim, and yes I can back it up if you tell me which part you object to specifically. In the thousands of hours of professional debate I have watched I have never seen or heard of a non-theistic moral theorist claim divine command theory is unsubstantiated because substantiation does not really apply. Let me give you some generalizations. In the hundreds of moral debates I have watched, the transcripts from even more debates I read, and from the approximately 20,000 debates I have had:

1. Every single theist claims that objective morality exists and so God exists.
2. 98% of non-theists agree that if God exists then moral values and duties exist. Therefor divine command theory is philosophically sound on its own. However they deny that objective morality exists, because they a priori assume God can't exist.
3. The 2% of non-theists left over maintain the bizarre position that objective morality exists but God does not which is not a rejection of divine command theory just an assumption of an alternate theory which they never explain.
4. The objection made by 98% of non-theists is not that they deny divine command theory its self but that they deny God's existence or the existence of objective morality.
5. Your the first person in my exhaustive experience in the field of theological debate to suggest what you have.

Regardless, to debate this issue could you please at least learn what the terms I supplied mean, and explain which part of a very complex theory (divine command) it is your arguing against and why. I can't evaluate the mere declaration "unsubstantiated".

I have a much easier way to resolve this. Please show me without appealing to the supernatural how any action real or imaged in any category is objectively good or evil. If you have a point at all this should be a piece of cake.

P.S. You suggested reason is the highest possible authority. So please tell me who's reason we are to use, and who's reason are we to use to determine who's reason we are to use, and so on? Is it Hitler's reason we use, yours, mine, Mother Theresa's, Pol Pot's, etc...? Reason must first decide on what goals morality is supposed to align with. Which goals; Christ's goals, the horrific goals of social Darwinism, the goals of humanism, the goals of pragmatism, the goals of the Golden Dawn, Islam, etc.....? Once you decide on a goal then who's system of morality best reaches the arbitrary goals we have picked out based on someone's reason? ETC.........