TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

Wichitabear said:

---

They only hurt themselves quash. I'm not worried about them hurting Christians. We'll get the last hurrah.

---

They used to only hurt themselves. We stuck our nose all over the ME and now they do, in fact, target Christians.

Religious ire is always much stronger when directed at heretics than at non-believers; GTFO and watch the Shiia-Sunni ****storm.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

It requires faith/belief in order for there to be such a thing as meaning. Those who say they are atheists yet cling to some system of faith/belief are hypocritical. I think agnosticism is a more intellectually honest position.

quash said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

They only hurt themselves quash. I'm not worried about them hurting Christians. We'll get the last hurrah.

---

They used to only hurt themselves. We stuck our nose all over the ME and now they do, in fact, target Christians.

Religious ire is always much stronger when directed at heretics than at non-believers; GTFO and watch the Shiia-Sunni ****storm.

---

Fwiw, I agree; GTFO and watch. The only way to win is not to play.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

Again, that is your opinion. Not a fact.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

I didn't say anything about cultural morals.

Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?

What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?

Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?

And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

Perhaps shallow would be better analysis?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

" The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

- - - atheist Richard Dawkins

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

It requires faith/belief in order for there to be such a thing as meaning. Those who say they are atheists yet cling to some system of faith/belief are hypocritical. I think agnosticism is a more intellectually honest position.

---

I understand why atheists resist being told they are a religion. If it makes you happy that people have faith that the material world exists then by all means stick with it. Just don't expect non-believers to agree. My agnosticism is firmly rooted in a naturalistic worldview.

God said the road will be narrow.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

It requires faith/belief in order for there to be such a thing as meaning. Those who say they are atheists yet cling to some system of faith/belief are hypocritical. I think agnosticism is a more intellectually honest position.

---

I understand why atheists resist being told they are a religion. If it makes you happy that people have faith that the material world exists then by all means stick with it. Just don't expect non-believers to agree. My agnosticism is firmly rooted in a naturalistic worldview.

---

My discussion has been aimed at those who self-identify as atheists. I presume you agree there's a significant difference between atheism and agnosticism. So, you're saying there's a chance?

curtpenn to quash: "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

Ever since Dumb & Dumber, that line has killed the credibility of any post to which it is attached.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn to quash: "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

Ever since Dumb & Dumber, that line has killed the credibility of any post to which it is attached.

---

Meh. Made me laugh. Whatever.

Lighten up, Francis. Like that better?

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn to quash: "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

Ever since Dumb & Dumber, that line has killed the credibility of any post to which it is attached.

---

Meh. Made me laugh. Whatever.

Lighten up, Francis. Like that better?

---

Of course, better movie, better lines.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn to quash: "So, you're saying there's a chance?"

Ever since Dumb & Dumber, that line has killed the credibility of any post to which it is attached.

---

Meh. Made me laugh. Whatever.

Lighten up, Francis. Like that better?

---

Of course, better movie, better lines.

---

Couldn't say. Never seen either one of them. Oops. Couldn't have told you which ones they were from, for that matter.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

I didn't say anything about cultural morals.

Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?

What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?

Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?

And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?

---

Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.

Quote:

---

Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?

What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?

---

John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.

Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.

Quote:

---

Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?

---

This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?

Quote:

---

And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?

---

First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?

It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Or so you believe. Still waiting...

---

I answered the question. Morality is a product of evolution.

---

1) Show your proof
2) If morality is a product of evolution rather than a natural byproduct (however dimly perceived) of being created in the image of our Creator, why should we not simply ignore that which does not favor ourselves and/or our tribe, or however we identify "our kind", since once we are dead we cease to exist?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own". Was the Dungeonmaster on to something?

---

Morality is a natural byproduct of evolution. This idea is supported by evolutionary biology and psychology. There is no evidence that it is the by product of a creator. Current religious morals in religious cultures to a large extent favor self and tribe over other groups of individuals. Religion segregates people into as you say "our kind." The threat of impact upon an afterlife can lead to some abhorrent and immoral acts in the name of religion. Current events and history is full of such atrocities. My approach would not condone those acts as moral. Understanding that the life we each have is unique and all there is, makes it all the more cherished and valued, and conducive to moral and ethical treatment.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).

The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.

---

Quote:

---

Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).

---

Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,

Quote:

---

There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.

---

Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

" The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

- - - atheist Richard Dawkins

---

You take Dawkins out of context. While his statement is a statement of fact, he also argues that while the Universe is indifferent to our existence, our existence is not meaningless to us. In light of that fact, life should be all the more precious and meaningful to us, and all the more reason to help others who are in need. We are in a unique position to understand and appreciate the marvels of the Universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

---

Stoning is a civic law, not a moral law. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a moral law.

Now, what is the objectively moral scientific response to the evil Longhorn tribe that wants to exterminate your people?

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

---

Stoning is a civic law, not a moral law. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a moral law.

Now, what is the objectively moral scientific response to the evil Longhorn tribe that wants to exterminate your people?

---

Back up a step and don't harm them in a way that makes them seek your extermination. If that doesn't work seek allies so that the battle cannot be won by the Longhorns under any circumstances; if they recognize that and back down then no one is harmed. If they don't then your alliance will end the battle quickly and reduce harm that way. Not every correct moral decision is without cost, C. S. Lewis pretty much made a living on that.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

---

And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.

In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?

---

It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.

---

Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).

The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.

---

Quote:

---

Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).

---

Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be base upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,

Quote:

---

There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.

---

Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.

---

Evolutionary psychology is hypothetical at its core and is even heavily criticized by evolutionary scientists because of its untestable and non-empirical nature. So while you chastise religion as being a man made interpretation of historical events, please note evolutionary psychology suffers from a very similar type of origin.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

---

Why this continuing insistence that a materialist world is without meaning?

---

" The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

- - - atheist Richard Dawkins

---

You take Dawkins out of context. While his statement is a statement of fact, he also argues that while the Universe is indifferent to our existence, our existence is not meaningless to us. In light of that fact, life should be all the more precious and meaningful to us, and all the more reason to help others who are in need. We are in a unique position to understand and appreciate the marvels of the Universe.

---

That's ego and emotion talking, not nature or evolution. It is the atheist's own version of self righteousness. We are somehow better creatures designed (through randomness) to cognitively be empathetic to life. Yet we cannot control chaos, life or nature and are at its whims.

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Well, no, that's not what you were saying, at least not to me. You were saying that something can't be moral in one time, and immoral in another, unless the morals changed. I gave two examples how that is false. It explains how punishing adultery with stoning can be justified and moral in one time period, but not in another, without there being an inconsistency in God's moral law. God can see how things play out; you and I can't. Because of that, God's "morality" must be judged by the big picture, not just the here and now. It was of eternal importance that Jesus come to the earth. If he didn't, we would eternally suffer separation from God (hell). There is nothing more "moral" than saving us from that. God knows what he is doing. He does what is right. Stop doubting...and believe.

---

I've never said cultural morals don't change. Clearly they have including "Christian" morals. What I have pointed out is the god of Abraham is supposedly unchanging, yet his god's morals have changed. Stoning is an example. It is ok to stone in the OT yet, in the NT it is presumably not ok. Ordering the killing of men, women, children and animals by Yahweh is immoral by the standard of the Jewish law, yet Yahweh made the order, which is morally inconsistent for an unchanging god. IMO some things should always be considered immoral, from a humanistic objective science of morality perspective.

---

This point has already been addressed. Stoning was not a moral law.

So the evil Longhorn tribe in the next valley wants to kill your tribe and take your land for their own. What is the objectively moral scientific response?

---

If it is not a moral law, then what do you think it is? It is a penalty for various moral infractions in the Jewish law.

Isn't that what the Jews did to the Canaanites? Immoral by anyone's perspective, except Yahweh's.

---

Stoning is a civic law, not a moral law. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a moral law.

Now, what is the objectively moral scientific response to the evil Longhorn tribe that wants to exterminate your people?

---

Back up a step and don't harm them in a way that makes them seek your extermination. If that doesn't work seek allies so that the battle cannot be won by the Longhorns under any circumstances; if they recognize that and back down then no one is harmed. If they don't then your alliance will end the battle quickly and reduce harm that way. Not every correct moral decision is without cost, C. S. Lewis pretty much made a living on that.

---

^^^ I agree with Quash. I would add that civil, criminal, or civic laws are extensions of a culture's morality. In the Jewish tradition, the commandments are more than moral. Thou shalt not murder is part of the law.