Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
Patriarchy Preserves Christian Families
19,108 Views |
380 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Redbrickbear
Karl Marx said something incredibly similar regarding man as the highest being for man. His humanism was also built around degrading religion because it's not enough to critique religion as an illusion, but a world or system that requires illusions. In essence, the very naturalism you advocate.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Moral "harm", common humanity, and reason are all subjective constructs, with science being a terrible adjudicator of any of them.
Quote:
In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.
No need to hypothesize here. In just our lifetimes we have seen secular society evolve to a place where they can't even define what a woman is in the absence of Genesis, let alone grant her proper God given Biblical status.
Prove what, that rational thought, reason, and science as a basis for morality is better for humanity than Iron Age clerics making that determination on the assertion of supernatural revelation? Some things are self evident.Sam Lowry said:Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?TexasScientist said:Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.Sam Lowry said:These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.
Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.
Third time's a charm.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I wrote. Read it again.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.
A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?
I did read it. At least twice.
You didn't define humanism.
Relying on reason, logic, and science as opposed to religious dogma and supernatural superstition.
If there were Muslims, or others on this board, I'd challenge them also. A high percentage of my comment on the subject are directed at religion in general. Through knowledge, and maturation as a species, we've outgrown the need to attribute what we don't understand to the supernatural.Porteroso said:TexasScientist said:Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.Sam Lowry said:Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.TexasScientist said:But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.
The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?
The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?
Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.
In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.
Don't you realize religion is borderline built into us? Why pick on Christianity? It was always one of the better ones. Because it's big? Have you looked into all the other religions?
Everywhere there has ever been humanity, there has been religion. Not sure how you can imagine an ancient world without religion.
By definition of the terms, and using ration, reason and science you can make moral determinations. Far better than Iron Age clerics telling you what is right and wrong, harmful and not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. The scientific method can't be applied to determine moral truths. Rather, you've already decided a priori what those truths are. You're merely "testing" against your predetermined truths. You didn't arrive at those truths through the scientific method - e.g. based on what scientific method did you determine that benefit is "right" and harm is "wrong"?TexasScientist said:I'm talking about applying the scientific method to acquire knowledge or truths. I don't think you know what you are talking about.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Predictably, you continue to fail to grasp the concept despite the many times in previous threads it's been explained to you. Instead, you just double down on failed logic. As Sam Lowry correctly pointed out, your argument is circular. When you "ask questions" and "test" them, you are only testing them against arbitrary endpoints of your choosing. What you have NOT done, is establish that your chosen endpoints are "right" in of themselves. Another person can prefer endpoints opposite to those of yours, and the only basis upon which you can claim theirs are "wrong" while yours are "right" is merely arbitrary, absent a standard of truth.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.
2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.
You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.
There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.
However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.
Your other dilemma is this: you have never falsified the history of the resurrection of Jesus, despite your many flawed attempts. Calling it "mysticism" doesn't disprove it. The "internal inconsistencies" and "non-uniformity" based on your very flawed and heavily biased perceptions doesn't disprove it either, sorry. Therefore the fact remains, that since you can not falsify the history, and history is reality, you have no basis on which to claim that you are in line with reality while Christians are not. Moreover, if the history is true, then not only is Jesus the standard of truth, but so is the God of the Hebrew scriptures, since Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of it.
The idea of judgement in the afterlife was not a revisionist view of later Christians. Daniel 12:2 - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Whether or not all Jewish sects believed it or not is irrelevant. The correct view of the OT is what matters, not incorrect ones.
I'm not trying to falsify the resurrection. You can't prove the resurrection. What I can say is there is no empirical objective evidence for a resurrection ever having occurred. On that basis, it is far more likely than to have occurred. You're conflating primitive historical lore with historical fact. They're not the same. Do you believe Romulus ascended to heaven and was divine?
What is a correct view of the OT? What you say it is? The OT doesn't project a viewpoint. It is a compilation of religious law, and religious lore about the history of Jews.
Multiple historical attestations of an event is empirical objective evidence that a historical event happened. And that evidence is weighted even further by the fact these testators persisted despite facing great peril and heavy persecution, even to the point where it cost them their lives. But regardless of whether or not you believe their testimony, the main point is this: since you admit you can't falsify the resurrection, ultimately you can not claim that Christian morality is not consistent with the "evidence of reality". It could be, actually, your own atheist system or morality which denies that history that is against reality.
The correct view of the OT would be, for starters, being true to what the OT actually says. The view that there is no mention of judgement in the afterlife in the OT is incorrect, because it is directly falsified by the example I gave in Daniel 12:2. Ultimately, the correct view of the OT is the view that Jesus had. His resurrection validates him as the authority. And Jesus affirms there will be a judgement in the afterlife, just as Daniel 12:2 says.
Credible evidence is the issue. Testimony about testimony decades after the fact before individuals with their own agendas attempted to write the stories down, is nothing more that written lore in a sea of incredulity.
That's now what I said. I said not all Jews believed in a judgement and afterlife.
Use the definitions of the terms. That way it's pretty easy, when some religious mystic tells you genocide of the Canaanites is moral and good, you'll know better.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
Marx promoted an economic and political ideology. He is irrelevant to humanism.ATL Bear said:Karl Marx said something incredibly similar regarding man as the highest being for man. His humanism was also built around degrading religion because it's not enough to critique religion as an illusion, but a world or system that requires illusions. In essence, the very naturalism you advocate.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Moral "harm", common humanity, and reason are all subjective constructs, with science being a terrible adjudicator of any of them.
Science with rational thought and reason would be the best way to make moral determinations. Certainly relying on Iron Age clerics mystical assertions is built upon their primitive subjective constructs.
I don't think you can define secular society by fringe elements, any more than you can define Christians by the Mormon sect, or Jim Jones. Science can define a woman pretty easily. And what does it mean to grant a woman her proper God given Biblical status? That's interpretation is wide open for all kinds of abuse of women. Applied Biblical status is abusive.Realitybites said:Quote:
In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.
No need to hypothesize here. In just our lifetimes we have seen secular society evolve to a place where they can't even define what a woman is in the absence of Genesis, let alone grant her proper God given Biblical status.
Quite the opposite. Humanism was the necessary social construct. Perhaps you fail to grasp that in your atheist world, morality, rights, social structure etc. all stem from the politics of the culture. They are man created and man given. Marx, Mao, Sartre, Feuerbach they all knew and understood this, and why it was and is a centerpiece to these ideologies.TexasScientist said:Marx promoted an economic and political ideology. He is irrelevant to humanism.ATL Bear said:Karl Marx said something incredibly similar regarding man as the highest being for man. His humanism was also built around degrading religion because it's not enough to critique religion as an illusion, but a world or system that requires illusions. In essence, the very naturalism you advocate.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Moral "harm", common humanity, and reason are all subjective constructs, with science being a terrible adjudicator of any of them.
Science with rational thought and reason would be the best way to make moral determinations. Certainly relying on Iron Age clerics mystical assertions is built upon their primitive subjective constructs.
Without a higher power, you cannot transcend the human condition, including its scientific limitations and understandings. Particularly when science is not an effective arbiter of right and wrong. Human subjectivity in reason is what you are left with, and like denominations or forms of religion, you are left with the same conflicts of ideologies in humanism with one fatal flaw. Nihilism is its ultimate result. An untenable basis for any morality or reason for that matter.
Beliefs may be self-evident to the faithful. Do they hold up to scrutiny?TexasScientist said:Prove what, that rational thought, reason, and science as a basis for morality is better for humanity than Iron Age clerics making that determination on the assertion of supernatural revelation? Some things are self evident.Sam Lowry said:Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?TexasScientist said:Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.Sam Lowry said:These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.
Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.
Your "benefit vs. harm" standard of morality is basically a form of utilitarianism, and it has many of the same problems. How is benefit defined -- in terms of pleasure, survival, or something else? Do all benefits have the same value, or are some more valuable than others? How are different benefits summed and compared? Is any action inherently bad, or does everything depend on the total measure of benefit and harm? These are just a few of the questions that modern philosophers have failed to answer coherently. They contradict not only each other but often themselves.
In fact the claim that certain principles are self-evident was the last gasp of utilitarianism. Ironically enough it was known as intuitionism...intuition of course being the opposite of reason.
You're not answering the question, you're just restating your claim. Show me the scientific method used to determine that your "benefit vs. harm" paradigm is the moral standard of "right" vs. "wrong".TexasScientist said:By definition of the terms, and using ration, reason and science you can make moral determinations. Far better than Iron Age clerics telling you what is right and wrong, harmful and not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. The scientific method can't be applied to determine moral truths. Rather, you've already decided a priori what those truths are. You're merely "testing" against your predetermined truths. You didn't arrive at those truths through the scientific method - e.g. based on what scientific method did you determine that benefit is "right" and harm is "wrong"?TexasScientist said:I'm talking about applying the scientific method to acquire knowledge or truths. I don't think you know what you are talking about.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Predictably, you continue to fail to grasp the concept despite the many times in previous threads it's been explained to you. Instead, you just double down on failed logic. As Sam Lowry correctly pointed out, your argument is circular. When you "ask questions" and "test" them, you are only testing them against arbitrary endpoints of your choosing. What you have NOT done, is establish that your chosen endpoints are "right" in of themselves. Another person can prefer endpoints opposite to those of yours, and the only basis upon which you can claim theirs are "wrong" while yours are "right" is merely arbitrary, absent a standard of truth.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.
2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.
You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.
There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.
However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.
Your other dilemma is this: you have never falsified the history of the resurrection of Jesus, despite your many flawed attempts. Calling it "mysticism" doesn't disprove it. The "internal inconsistencies" and "non-uniformity" based on your very flawed and heavily biased perceptions doesn't disprove it either, sorry. Therefore the fact remains, that since you can not falsify the history, and history is reality, you have no basis on which to claim that you are in line with reality while Christians are not. Moreover, if the history is true, then not only is Jesus the standard of truth, but so is the God of the Hebrew scriptures, since Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of it.
The idea of judgement in the afterlife was not a revisionist view of later Christians. Daniel 12:2 - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Whether or not all Jewish sects believed it or not is irrelevant. The correct view of the OT is what matters, not incorrect ones.
I'm not trying to falsify the resurrection. You can't prove the resurrection. What I can say is there is no empirical objective evidence for a resurrection ever having occurred. On that basis, it is far more likely than to have occurred. You're conflating primitive historical lore with historical fact. They're not the same. Do you believe Romulus ascended to heaven and was divine?
What is a correct view of the OT? What you say it is? The OT doesn't project a viewpoint. It is a compilation of religious law, and religious lore about the history of Jews.
Multiple historical attestations of an event is empirical objective evidence that a historical event happened. And that evidence is weighted even further by the fact these testators persisted despite facing great peril and heavy persecution, even to the point where it cost them their lives. But regardless of whether or not you believe their testimony, the main point is this: since you admit you can't falsify the resurrection, ultimately you can not claim that Christian morality is not consistent with the "evidence of reality". It could be, actually, your own atheist system or morality which denies that history that is against reality.
The correct view of the OT would be, for starters, being true to what the OT actually says. The view that there is no mention of judgement in the afterlife in the OT is incorrect, because it is directly falsified by the example I gave in Daniel 12:2. Ultimately, the correct view of the OT is the view that Jesus had. His resurrection validates him as the authority. And Jesus affirms there will be a judgement in the afterlife, just as Daniel 12:2 says.
Credible evidence is the issue. Testimony about testimony decades after the fact before individuals with their own agendas attempted to write the stories down, is nothing more that written lore in a sea of incredulity.
That's now what I said. I said not all Jews believed in a judgement and afterlife.
It's been decades since the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. You think people who witnessed it are still remembering it like it was yesterday? "Decades after the fact" does not take away the credibility. Fail. And Paul's writings were even closer than "decades". Having "their own agendas" doesn't take it away either. Their "agenda" was to spread the truth. And they died for it. That makes their testimony all the more credible to the fair minded person, not to resentful atheists who are themselves "agenda driven".
You asked "what is the correct view of the OT?" and used the fact that not all Jews believed in judgement in the afterlife as evidence that the "correct" view is validly contestable. I've shown that this view is not valid by showing what the OT actually says.
HUH?! The definition of a term doesn't prove that it is morally "right" or "wrong".TexasScientist said:Use the definitions of the terms. That way it's pretty easy, when some religious mystic tells you genocide of the Canaanites is moral and good, you'll know better.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
Are you seriously this inept?
Hypothetically, what if the Canaanites were worse than the Israelites and their demise was a benefit not only to Israel but also to the neighboring tribes? Still an easy answer?TexasScientist said:Use the definitions of the terms. That way it's pretty easy, when some religious mystic tells you genocide of the Canaanites is moral and good, you'll know better.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
TexasScientist said:Third time's a charm.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I wrote. Read it again.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.
A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?
I did read it. At least twice.
You didn't define humanism.
Relying on reason, logic, and science as opposed to religious dogma and supernatural superstition.
Even if you are "relying on science," you still have to be able to operationalize your terms in a way that makes sense given your cosmology. You have yet to do this.
However, you are borrowing heavily from the assumptions of those "primitive religious myths" that you mock and despise to get your starting point for your own moral reasoning.
TS has purple hair and a nose ring. Go figure.
TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
TexasScientist said:Or, from misogynistic incels.Wangchung said:
Love getting lessons on patriarchy from people who cannot identify a woman by their biological traits.
1) There is misogyny in the world.
2) There is misandry in the world.
3) Mutual submission to Christ is the answer to both.
What the world needs are patriarchs in submission to Christ and not in submission to their sin. Kingdom minded men who care very much about cultivating righteousness on Earth for their family first, then for their neighbor, widows, and orphans.
PacificBear said:
TS has purple hair and a nose ring. Go figure.
He identifies as rational.
I'm always amazed.
havent read every response...Women arent designed to lead, but will when Men refuse to.
LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
I don't think that is true.
Had the Axis won they might have gotten away with it but it would not have changed the moral calculation.
The Turks were successful in committing genocide against the Armenia Christians and killing and expelling them from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
But while the Turks certainly got away with it we have not forgotten and most of the world recognizes it as a moral crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
Redbrickbear said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
I don't think that is true.
Had the Axis won they might have gotten away with it but it would not have changed the moral calculation.
The Turks were successful in committing genocide against the Armenia Christians and killing and expelling them from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
But while the Turks certainly got away with it we have not forgotten and most of the world recognizes it as a moral crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
It isn't true in the real world, but it is true in the fantasyland where the morality of an action is dependent on whatever a society comes up with.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
I don't think that is true.
Had the Axis won they might have gotten away with it but it would not have changed the moral calculation.
The Turks were successful in committing genocide against the Armenia Christians and killing and expelling them from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
But while the Turks certainly got away with it we have not forgotten and most of the world recognizes it as a moral crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
It isn't true in the real world, but it is true in the fantasyland where the morality of an action is dependent on whatever a society comes up with.
Oh...absolutely I see what your saying.
What you and the other posters on this subject fail to recognize is that morality based in religion is nothing more than a cultural construct created by clerics (humans), to provide social order and control in furtherance of their objectives, with a deity attached to give it the illusion of authority. Otherwise, except for tenets, it is no different than any other moral code devised by man. The use of rational thought, reason and science as a basis for devising an objective and equitable moral system is preeminent, and by far to be desired.Sam Lowry said:Beliefs may be self-evident to the faithful. Do they hold up to scrutiny?TexasScientist said:Prove what, that rational thought, reason, and science as a basis for morality is better for humanity than Iron Age clerics making that determination on the assertion of supernatural revelation? Some things are self evident.Sam Lowry said:Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?TexasScientist said:Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.Sam Lowry said:These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.
Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.
Your "benefit vs. harm" standard of morality is basically a form of utilitarianism, and it has many of the same problems. How is benefit defined -- in terms of pleasure, survival, or something else? Do all benefits have the same value, or are some more valuable than others? How are different benefits summed and compared? Is any action inherently bad, or does everything depend on the total measure of benefit and harm? These are just a few of the questions that modern philosophers have failed to answer coherently. They contradict not only each other but often themselves.
In fact the claim that certain principles are self-evident was the last gasp of utilitarianism. Ironically enough it was known as intuitionism...intuition of course being the opposite of reason.
What you're arguing is that religion, any religion, is the preeminent basis for morality. What you fail to recognize is that religious based morality is man created and man given, much of which is based upon irrational religious whims and agenda. Science, with rational thought and reason applied points180 degrees from nihilism.ATL Bear said:Quite the opposite. Humanism was the necessary social construct. Perhaps you fail to grasp that in your atheist world, morality, rights, social structure etc. all stem from the politics of the culture. They are man created and man given. Marx, Mao, Sartre, Feuerbach they all knew and understood this, and why it was and is a centerpiece to these ideologies.TexasScientist said:Marx promoted an economic and political ideology. He is irrelevant to humanism.ATL Bear said:Karl Marx said something incredibly similar regarding man as the highest being for man. His humanism was also built around degrading religion because it's not enough to critique religion as an illusion, but a world or system that requires illusions. In essence, the very naturalism you advocate.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Moral "harm", common humanity, and reason are all subjective constructs, with science being a terrible adjudicator of any of them.
Science with rational thought and reason would be the best way to make moral determinations. Certainly relying on Iron Age clerics mystical assertions is built upon their primitive subjective constructs.
Without a higher power, you cannot transcend the human condition, including its scientific limitations and understandings. Particularly when science is not an effective arbiter of right and wrong. Human subjectivity in reason is what you are left with, and like denominations or forms of religion, you are left with the same conflicts of ideologies in humanism with one fatal flaw. Nihilism is its ultimate result. An untenable basis for any morality or reason for that matter.
TexasScientist said:What you and the other posters on this subject fail to recognize is that morality based in religion is nothing more than a cultural construct created by clerics (humans), to provide social order and control in furtherance of their objectives, with a deity attachedSam Lowry said:Beliefs may be self-evident to the faithful. Do they hold up to scrutiny?TexasScientist said:Prove what, that rational thought, reason, and science as a basis for morality is better for humanity than Iron Age clerics making that determination on the assertion of supernatural revelation? Some things are self evident.Sam Lowry said:Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?TexasScientist said:Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.Sam Lowry said:These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.
Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.
Your "benefit vs. harm" standard of morality is basically a form of utilitarianism, and it has many of the same problems. How is benefit defined -- in terms of pleasure, survival, or something else? Do all benefits have the same value, or are some more valuable than others? How are different benefits summed and compared? Is any action inherently bad, or does everything depend on the total measure of benefit and harm? These are just a few of the questions that modern philosophers have failed to answer coherently. They contradict not only each other but often themselves.
In fact the claim that certain principles are self-evident was the last gasp of utilitarianism. Ironically enough it was known as intuitionism...intuition of course being the opposite of reason.
If their objective was to end human ritual sacrifice, child killing, easy divorce (abuse of women), 1st cousin marriage/incest, human death for entertainment, and all the other terrible practices of the pagan world...along with giving humans a reason to act morally and hope for a afterlife then I can't object.
In fact I think you will find that almost all of your modern secular-liberal values (being against Slavery for instance) are taken from Christianity.
Someone said that modern Liberalism is just Protestant Christianity without God.
And if moral religion was just an attempt to provide social order and control....how will Liberals rule the future without such a system? They desperately want and need to control people....how will they do that without religion? If it is fact religion is just a system of control...
Hypothetically, yes. Benefit is not the only component to morality. It's what is right and wrong, equitable and just. Two wrongs don't make a right. Slaughtering Canaanites for Israelites benefit would be wrong. Otherwise, you could justify or excuse any immoral act.Sam Lowry said:Hypothetically, what if the Canaanites were worse than the Israelites and their demise was a benefit not only to Israel but also to the neighboring tribes? Still an easy answer?TexasScientist said:Use the definitions of the terms. That way it's pretty easy, when some religious mystic tells you genocide of the Canaanites is moral and good, you'll know better.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
TexasScientist said:Hypothetically, yes. Benefit is not the only component to morality. It's what is right and wrong, equitable and just. Two wrongs don't make a right. Slaughtering Canaanites for Israelites benefit would be wrong. Otherwise, you could justify or excuse any immoral act.Sam Lowry said:Hypothetically, what if the Canaanites were worse than the Israelites and their demise was a benefit not only to Israel but also to the neighboring tribes? Still an easy answer?TexasScientist said:Use the definitions of the terms. That way it's pretty easy, when some religious mystic tells you genocide of the Canaanites is moral and good, you'll know better.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Which test determines that benefit vs harm is the standard of moral truth? Sure, you can make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide, but only against YOUR chosen standards. If another person holds to the reverse standard that harm is "good", then genocide would be morally "right". Absent a standard of truth, he has just as much a claim to what is "right" as you do.TexasScientist said:You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
There is no immoral act (or moral act) in your cosmology.
You have to account for this fact for a discussion about whether science or religion, or a particular religion, is a legitimate basis for determining right and wrong to make any sense.
What assumptions? In the case of Christianity, for instance, it's all transcribed.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Third time's a charm.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I wrote. Read it again.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.
A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?
I did read it. At least twice.
You didn't define humanism.
Relying on reason, logic, and science as opposed to religious dogma and supernatural superstition.
Even if you are "relying on science," you still have to be able to operationalize your terms in a way that makes sense given your cosmology. You have yet to do this.
However, you are borrowing heavily from the assumptions of those "primitive religious myths" that you mock and despise to get your starting point for your own moral reasoning.
I don't have to. The final solution was deemed a crime against humanity by secular reasoning.LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
Genocide is acceptable under OT morality.
Christianity is misogynistic. The rest of you comments are unfounded dogma.Mafia Bear said:TexasScientist said:Or, from misogynistic incels.Wangchung said:
Love getting lessons on patriarchy from people who cannot identify a woman by their biological traits.
1) There is misogyny in the world.
2) There is misandry in the world.
3) Mutual submission to Christ is the answer to both.
What the world needs are patriarchs in submission to Christ and not in submission to their sin. Kingdom minded men who care very much about cultivating righteousness on Earth for their family first, then for their neighbor, widows, and orphans.
Okay, but how does that change anything I said? It doesn't make your view any more rational.TexasScientist said:What you and the other posters on this subject fail to recognize is that morality based in religion is nothing more than a cultural construct created by clerics (humans), to provide social order and control in furtherance of their objectives, with a deity attached to give it the illusion of authority. Otherwise, except for tenets, it is no different than any other moral code devised by man. The use of rational thought, reason and science as a basis for devising an objective and equitable moral system is preeminent, and by far to be desired.Sam Lowry said:Beliefs may be self-evident to the faithful. Do they hold up to scrutiny?TexasScientist said:Prove what, that rational thought, reason, and science as a basis for morality is better for humanity than Iron Age clerics making that determination on the assertion of supernatural revelation? Some things are self evident.Sam Lowry said:Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?TexasScientist said:Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.Sam Lowry said:These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.TexasScientist said:Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.Sam Lowry said:This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.
You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.
If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.
Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.
Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.
Your "benefit vs. harm" standard of morality is basically a form of utilitarianism, and it has many of the same problems. How is benefit defined -- in terms of pleasure, survival, or something else? Do all benefits have the same value, or are some more valuable than others? How are different benefits summed and compared? Is any action inherently bad, or does everything depend on the total measure of benefit and harm? These are just a few of the questions that modern philosophers have failed to answer coherently. They contradict not only each other but often themselves.
In fact the claim that certain principles are self-evident was the last gasp of utilitarianism. Ironically enough it was known as intuitionism...intuition of course being the opposite of reason.
TexasScientist said:I don't have to. The final solution was deemed a crime against humanity by secular reasoning.LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Said Yahweh.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.TexasScientist said:Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.Realitybites said:TexasScientist said:
. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.
Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.
It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.
Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?
Why not?
Answer the question.
Why not?
Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.
If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.
By what standard was the final solution for the Jewish problem judged to be good or bad?
Had the Axis powers prevailed, that solution would have been seen as providing a rational and equitable way to solve human problems.
How do you justify that?
Genocide is acceptable under OT morality.
All such statues and crimes are built on Western law codes and Enlightenment values…that come from Western Christianity.
You are like a guy looking at a modern home and saying "only a progressive modern liberal society could build this"…discounting the foundation and construction techniques passed down from centuries before.
TexasScientist said:Christianity is misogynistic…Mafia Bear said:TexasScientist said:Or, from misogynistic incels.Wangchung said:
Love getting lessons on patriarchy from people who cannot identify a woman by their biological traits.
1) There is misogyny in the world.
2) There is misandry in the world.
3) Mutual submission to Christ is the answer to both.
What the world needs are patriarchs in submission to Christ and not in submission to their sin. Kingdom minded men who care very much about cultivating righteousness on Earth for their family first, then for their neighbor, widows, and orphans.
Very debatable.
The term itself is a completely modern creation
[According to the Oxford English Dictionary the English word "misogyny" was only coined in the middle of the 17th century from the Greek misos 'hatred' + gun 'woman'. The word itself was rarely used until it was popularised by second-wave feminism in the 1970s.]