MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

[MMMMMM]

and you are the reincarnation of Cujo, in miniature schnauzer form.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

it's an interesting argument. alternatively one could argue that if someone needs make-believe fairy tales about other lives and other worlds to motivate them to conform to a standard, then they they don't really get it and they aren't really moral because they are unable to be moral for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with motivation. The point is that your standard is subjective and whimsical without some ultimate reference point. Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God. Even the worlds staunchest and most eloquent defenders of atheism have conceded this point.

[ACPlayer]

Moral standards are a man made device to run a society in a "reasonable" manner. Hence we have made murder and rape illegal and we have deemed them immoral acts -- without that our society would break down. There is no ultimate morality that has been given to us by God or whatever. The morality of the religion is a man made political device

Most religions are simply a way of making a social structure with an ever increasing population work.

I would be interested in a link from a staunch and eloquent atheist conceding this point. Of course if he conceded this point would he still be an atheist?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral standards are a man made device to run a society in a "reasonable" manner. Hence we have made murder and rape illegal and we have deemed them immoral acts -- without that our society would break down. There is no ultimate morality that has been given to us by God or whatever. The morality of the religion is a man made political device

[/ QUOTE ]

So then if a certain society decided rape was an acceptable act then you wouldnt think it was wrong? What about a society of child molestors?

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in a link from a staunch and eloquent atheist conceding this point. Of course if he conceded this point would he still be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he would have to admit objective morality isnt feasible though. I will work on some links, most of the quotes I have are at home in non-electronic sources.

[ACPlayer]

If they could make society work, I would suggest that anything goes. In the modern age, it is unlikely that they can make society work as the weight of world outrage would be tremendous.

I believe that we, as a population have determined that for good social order it is better that rape, incest, murder etc be banned. Giving them an immoral label gives it a the ring of a "higher commandment".


Regarding the atheist -- seems to me that if he admits that God is the arbiter of morality then he cant be much of an atheist. If he is saying that there are some actions that we have determined to be "objectively immoral" then that is OK, as long as it is WE who are doing the determining and not god.

Anyway, I await the links or even any books you can refer.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God. Even the worlds staunchest and most eloquent defenders of atheism have conceded this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and I am not an atheist.

Moral standards can be based upon the golden rule--or at least, upon not inflicting unnecessary cruelty to others. I don't see why the existence of God is necessary for this; it is simply a matter of empathy for others (and perhaps also an indirect self-interest in that by not mistreating others, you may make it less likely that others will mistreat you).

I don't think you need to believe in God to know that needlessly mistreating others is bad and wrong.

[vulturesrow]

Here is a quote from Kai Nielsen, one of the leading defenders of atheism.

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (l984):90

[ QUOTE ]
If they could make society work, I would suggest that anything goes. In the modern age, it is unlikely that they can make society work as the weight of world outrage would be tremendous.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why would the world be outraged? Would they be outraged at the disruption of social order? Or would it be something more visceral than that? I would almost to a man it would be the latter.

A couple books to recommend on Christian apologetics. I sincerely encourage you to try one of them out. My main point in all this is show that faith in God is a position that can be reached through reason.

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Handbook of Christian Apologetics

The first is one is the one that is a bit more intellectually rigorous. The latter has a bit more breadth and just a bit less depth. Both are excellent. I also recommend C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
don't think you need to believe in God to know that needlessly mistreating others is bad and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please dont misunderstand me here. I am not saying an atheist isnt capable of what I would consider a very moral life. My point is that his moral way of life would be no more valid than any other. There is no way to prove it. It is completely subjective.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Please dont misunderstand me here. I am not saying an atheist isnt capable of what I would consider a very moral life. My point is that his moral way of life would be no more valid than any other. There is no way to prove it. It is completely subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand, and still disagree.

I don't see what the existence of God--or lack thereof--has to do with treating others decently (or treating others needlessly cruelly).

I don't see why a belief in God, or the actual existence of God, would make that moral standard any more "objective." It seems pretty clear to me that treating others decently is moral, and treating others meanly is immoral. And that whether God exists or does not exist.

Now, you may say that such a moral standard cannot be proven, and exists subjectively. Perhaps. But I don't think that moral standard it can be proven any better if God exists, than if God does not exist.

Also, tangentially speaking now, I am not aware of any proof that God either exists or does not exist.

I think all that is necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently instead of meanly, is an awareness of others and a degree of empathy for others. God may exist, but the existence of God is not necessary for this perception or standard.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty clear to me that treating others decently is moral, and treating others meanly is immoral. And that whether God exists or does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the person who thinks it is completely moral to always act in his best interest, regardless of harm it may inflict on others. Do you think your morality trumps his? If so, why?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why a belief in God, or the actual existence of God, would make that moral standard any more "objective."

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you objectively measure something? You compare it to a known standard and see how it measures up. What standard are you using to measure your morality? What makes it better than the society of child molestors?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, tangentially speaking now, I am not aware of any proof that God either exists or does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. There is no way to empirically prove the existence of God. Instead you have to build the case like building a case based on circumstanial evidence in a court of law. There are many sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God. This plus other things, which are more pertinent to Christianity than to the existence of God in general, build a strong probability for the existence of God. And that is really the best you can hope for.