Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality

dbox

@piloteer
 
The fallacy question was for @Zombieguy1987. He was marking my replies as fallacious without providing evidence of the fallacy. Sorry for the confusion. 

Again, I do not think that all morality is objective. All people are moral beings (I can qualify that statement if you want) and as such, have moral codes. My point was that their codes are not authoritative in and of themselves. The only objective moral code that exists is that which is established by God. He created the universe, established its laws (both natural and moral), and rules over it. As such His law is morally binding for all people.  

piloteer

@dbox

God gave us all free will. We are free to sin, we are free to follow God's word. God will not interfere with our choices. We are free to reject God's word, and willfully except the fires of hell, and murder and pillage without God's interference. He's not going to stop us from doing anything. That's not authoritative, or objective.

dbox

@piloteer

If His law is not authoritative and morally binding, then why do you mention the fires of hell? 

piloteer

@dbox

If someone wants to live just for the sake of murdering at random simply for their own entertainment, and in turn they willfully except hell, God is powerless to stop them. He cannot do anything about it. The important word here is "powerless"!

MayCaesar

@dbox

Even if the god had created the Universe, his morals would still be merely his opinion. Claiming that just because he created the world, his morality is objective, would be fallacious. It would be like you creating an AI and then declaring that, since you are the creator, your morals should be objective from the AI's point of view. In reality, even if you program your morals directly into the AI, it will quickly override them through a self-learning process.

As for a certain moral being authoritative:
a) What is authoritative for a given individual is subjective. Something/someone that you may see as an authority, I can see as an irrelevant entity.
b) A moral being authoritative does not change it being subjective. I find Milton Freedom to be strong authority for myself in terms of morals (I agree with a lot of them); that does not make me see his morals as objective, however, and I realise perfectly well that, ultimately, they were his opinion.

The fires of hell do not exist, of course; it is a metaphor. But even if they did, it would not mean that me getting into them implies me breaking some objective moral code. Rather, it would be me not playing the god's tune. It would be like a person in Hitler's Germany openly denouncing nationalism, and getting into a concentration camp as a result: it is an overreaction, it is not a sign of some objective category existing.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>I think the core mistake of your reasoning is that you assume that the moral obligation comes from the moral itself, while in actuality it comes from the individual's voluntary acceptance of that obligation.

No. The obligation is from the morality's "ought", so God, and governments hold you responsible to follow it and accountable if you don't.

The idea is that we should, or  "ought to" obey the authoritative morality, not that we cannot resist following it.

>Let us return back to the Saudi Arabian example. In Saudi Arabia women are prohibited from driving, as women driving is seen as immoral by the government, immoral enough to enforce this law (I disagree that something being immoral from any point of view should be a valid ground for banning that something, but that is the matter of political implementation, rather than philosophy).

OK.

>In the US, women are not prohibited from driving. However, it is possible for a given woman in the US to study the dominating Saudi Arabian morals, agree with their reasonability and voluntarily decide, "I should not drive; me driving would be immoral". And as a result, the woman has a moral obligation to follow the subjective morals dominating in Saudi Arabia.

No. There is no moral obligation. If she changes her mind again, there is no consequence, and she has not acted immorally. Her only obligation is to herself.

>As such, morals are necessarily subjective, because the decision to comply or not to comply with a given moral is solely in the hands of the individual.

That is not what makes a moral law subjective, and that is not what subjective morality means in moral philosophy. If a moral law is subjective, no one is immoral for not following it because it carries no "ought".

As an imperfect example, Saudi Arabia cannot charge an American woman in America with breaking the law if she drives.

>And even if a certain force tries to force the individual into following a certain moral, the individual can resist and never really accept the moral internally.

True, but the subjectivity or objectivity of the morality is not based on whether people can choose to obey or not, but on how the moral came into existence. A morality not based on anyone's personal opinion would be objective.

>What would be an objective moral then?

That is the question. And the answer depends on what one's prior beliefs are. What a person believes about B, will be decided by what he already believes about C, and what he believes about A will be decided by what he already believes about B.

>It would be a moral that the individual can logically conclude to be correct. The individual cannot say, "This moral is wrong", without this statement being logically incorrect. Do such morals exist?

Yes. And now we come to my point in this thread. Only God can give such a morality. Only God offers a truly objective morality.

Now atheists don't believe God exists. That is their right, but then the Christian says, your morality can only be subjective and cannot morally be used to condemn any behavior. All an atheist can say is that some morality is different from his.

Christians find that to be a morally inferior position.

>Does a moral exist that can be mathematically proven to be "right"?

Mathematically? I don't know, but I have found a morality that is objective and therefore authoritative. In the end, the final question is, " why is X morally right?

To the Christian, the atheists only answer is, "because I say it is", and that answer is the root of all immorality in the world. Because a morality you dream up cannot have an "ought". No one is obligated to follow it, and no one is immoral for not following it.

>I cannot see how it can be the case, given than what is "right", in turn, is inherently subjective.

What is right is not subjective if one has a moral standard. A moral constant.

Here is the beautiful part. The Christian's logic on this is pristine even if God does not exist! The logic holds.

The only alternative to the Christian's position is a world where everyone has his own morality which he makes superior to everyone else's morality. That world doesn't work morally. Our history has shown that.

MayCaesar

@ethang5

First of all, the model of the world in which there exists one god is just one of the infinity of possible models. There can also be 0 gods. There can be 2 gods. There can be 17349562 gods. There can be infinity gods. There can be a continuum of gods. In all of these cases your logic is not even applicable.

Second, even if just one god existed, his morals would still be his opinion, hence inherently subjective. Today the god looks at the dinosaurs roaming the Earth and smiles at the life thriving in relative stability and happiness; tomorrow he gets bored and hurls an asteroid at the Earth to wipe all the dinosaurs our, suddenly changing his moral ideals from love and compassion to indifference and violence. Tomorrow the god will decide that it is a good idea to perform an experiment on humans, to possess one of them (Jesus of Nazareth) and talk a lot of nonsense the god does not himself believe - and see just how far people will go in accepting that.

Third, here is how the process of religious moral spread goes. Someone says, "Here is an awesome book containing a lot of morals; go ahead and read it, guys!" You go ahead, read the book, and what it says resonates with you. You become a Christian and employ the Christian morals.
You could just as well have read Quran or Torah and accept a different set of morals. You could also be like me, read books on mathematics in your childhood instead of religious works, and grow into developing your own moral ruleset from scratch based on the principles of abstract logic. You could even just say, "Morals do not exist, I do not believe in them", and do whatever your body and mind desires with no brakes. All of these are valid alternatives.

Finally, the government or the society enforcing something does not make that something into an objective moral. The Saudi Arabian government may believe that women not being able to drive is morally right, but, as you yourself pointed out, it is still a subjective moral.

Also, if I am not mistaken, Jesus of Nazareth claimed that everyone should be responsible before themselves and no one should judge others for their sins - one should forgive everyone. Hence your claim that the god and the governments must hold you responsible for breaking the morals seems to not correlate well with the Christian teachings.

Your position seem to be based on what leads, in your opinion, to better practical consequences. I was talking about raw definitions, however. Christians may say that believing in a set of, in their view, objective morals is better for the society. Perhaps, but that does not make those morals objective. You can believe in something that is not true and have a better outcome as a result; it is not unheard of. But that something still remains untrue, you see.

I think you understand it well, you simply do not quite see that you understand it. Here is an indication from your last post:

>What would be an objective moral then? 
That is the question. And the answer depends on what one's prior beliefs are. What a person believes about B, will be decided by what he already believes about C, and what he believes about A will be decided by what he already believes about B.

You essentially are saying outright that an objective moral depends on one's prior beliefs. That is a self-contradiction. Anything that depends on one's prior beliefs is subjective by definition.

dbox

@piloteer

Why would they go to hell?

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>First of all, the model of the world in which there exists one god is just one of the infinity of possible models.

Actually, it isn't. Very few worlds other worlds are logically possible.

>There can also be 0 gods.

No there couldn't. God is a necessary being. (I hope you know what "necessary" means in logic)

>There can be 2 gods. There can be 17349562 gods. There can be infinity gods.

Not if the universe has to be logical, no.

>There can be a continuum of gods. In all of these cases your logic is not even applicable.

There cannot. None of your "possibilities" are possible.

>Second, even if just one god existed, his morals would still be his opinion, hence inherently subjective.

No sir. That is incorrect and illogical.

>Today the god looks at the dinosaurs roaming the Earth and smiles at the life thriving in relative stability and happiness; tomorrow he gets bored and hurls an asteroid at the Earth to wipe all the dinosaurs out, suddenly changing his moral ideals from love and compassion to indifference and violence.

If we are each allowed to paint our own imaginations as truth, of course our points will stand. I'm not really interested in your imagination.

>Tomorrow the god will decide that it is a good idea to perform an experiment on humans, to possess one of them (Jesus of Nazareth) and talk a lot of nonsense the god does not himself believe - and see just how far people will go in accepting that.

I simply do not have enough time to play imagine this with you. Your anti-theist bias is not interesting.

>All of these are valid alternatives.

No they are not. Not if valid means what I think it does.

>Finally, the government or the society enforcing something does not make that something into an objective moral.

I agree, which is why I said it was an imperfect analogy. Further, it was an analogy for subjectivity, not objectivity.

>Also, if I am not mistaken, Jesus of Nazareth claimed that everyone should be responsible before themselves and no one should judge others for their sins - one should forgive everyone.

Not quite true. Jesus requires that only of Christians.

>Hence your claim that the god and the governments must hold you responsible for breaking the morals seems to not correlate well with the Christian teachings.

It is based on the "ought" that God can hold you responsible for sin. God requires us to obey or suffer the consequence of immorality. Just like governments. It is my choice whether I obey a law. But If I don't, I go to prison. The law holds an "ought" within its area of jurisdiction.

>Your position seem to be based on what leads, in your opinion, to better practical consequences.

Not really. God's way just happens to be more practical. Like practicality is a perk of God's morality.

>I was talking about raw definitions, however. Christians may say that believing in a set of, in their view, objective morals is better for the society. Perhaps, but that does not make those morals objective.

Objective morals would be morals that are not the opinion of any man. God's morality is certainly objective for us.

>You can believe in something that is not true and have a better outcome as a result; it is not unheard of. But that something still remains untrue, you see.

Perhaps, but that is not my position.

>I think you understand it well, you simply do not quite see that you understand it. Here is an indication from your last post:

>What would be an objective moral then? 
That is the question. And the answer depends on what one's prior beliefs are. What a person believes about B, will be decided by what he already believes about C, and what he believes about A will be decided by what he already believes about B.

You essentially are saying outright that an objective moral depends on one's prior beliefs.

No. I'm saying that whether one thinks objective morality exists, depends on prior beliefs. But their prior belief do not affect morality at all. Objective morality exists whether we believe it exist or not.

>That is a self-contradiction. Anything that depends on one's prior beliefs is subjective by definition.

Be more careful as you read. Imprecision is tiring.

dbox

@MayCaesar

I'll fill in where @ethang5 left off on two points.

Jesus was not possessed by God, He is God in the flesh. The Bible, unlike any other religious holy book, is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses within the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that report how the Creator God, the Almighty (as opposed to other lesser gods) interacted with humanity across history. 

His laws are subjective in the sense that they are His personal laws, but they are objective in the sense that regardless of personal taste, the natural universe as well as the free moral agents in that universe, are governed by those laws. 

piloteer

@dbox

A person who murders for the sake of their own entertainment, and also does it because they want to go to hell, will not be stopped by God. Pointing out that a person like that could still be able to go to heaven, only hurts your case. That means they got to do what they wanted on earth without being stopped, then in the end were still able to go to heaven, so their sins were forgiven by God. That's still not authoritative, and since a person like that could get into heaven without being forgiven by any of his/her victims, it makes it not objective.

Dee

@ethang5


>Let us return back to the Saudi Arabian example. In Saudi Arabia women are prohibited from driving, as women driving is seen as immoral by the government

The legal system of Saudi is based on Sharia Islamic law derived from the Quran, which is saying it’s from Allah himself .
The government is informed by the words of the Quran their law is based on that and just like you that is their authoritative source and therefore in their eyes objective because the source of the law is Allah , you use the self same logic but yet your source is deemed the correct one and objectively so because you say so making you a tyrant and dangerous.

You’re welcome 
,

Dee

 >The only objective moral code that exists is that which is established by God.

Which gods Allah? Christ? Zeus? Shiva? Woton? 

>He created the universe,

Prove it?

>established its laws (both natural and moral), and rules over it. As such His law is morally binding for all people.  

Its not for for me I hold myself to a higher moral standard than a god that approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide 

dbox

@piloteer

What is your definition/understanding of sin?

dbox

@Dee

>The only objective moral code that exists is that which is established by God. 

Which gods Allah? Christ? Zeus? Shiva? Woton? 

--The God of the Bible

>He created the universe, 

Prove it?

--What would you consider proof?

>established its laws (both natural and moral), and rules over it. As such His law is morally binding for all people.  

Its not for for me I hold myself to a higher moral standard than a god that approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide 

--could you provide examples just so I know where you are coming from?

Joeseph

@dbox

>
--The God of the Bible

Thats not a pretty poor standard 


>What would you consider proof?

An appearance from god 

->-could you provide examples just so I know where you are coming from?

I could but surely you know where they are as there are plenty of them to go on

piloteer

@dbox

I have no personal definition or understanding of sin. I think it's a social construction and subject to relativity. My definition or understanding of sin has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever though. You still haven't made a convincing argument which demonstrates how morals are objective or authoritative.

dbox

@Joeseph

--The God of the Bible

Thats not a pretty poor standard 

---I agree

>What would you consider proof?

An appearance from god 

---So you would accept the Bible then, as a majority of the writers experienced an appearance from God and wrote about it.

->-could you provide examples just so I know where you are coming from?

I could but surely you know where they are as there are plenty of them to go on

---I do but I'm not going to guess at what you know. 

Joeseph

@dbox


>---I agree

You do know I meant that's a pretty poor standard if not you do now 



-->-So you would accept the Bible then, as a majority of the writers experienced an appearance from God and wrote about it.

No I wouldn't as it's fiction 

->-could you provide examples just so I know where you're coming from?

Sure .....

 1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

You make great points. I also think that notions of right & wrong, good/bad are subjective in essence but I don't think this fact can actually prevent us from having enough grounds for an objective morality, which btw too many people conflate with "absolute". You can have objectivity without an absolutely authoritative source. I think people take too many things for granted on this issue, there are problems with many ideas about what is morality if it exists, the very fact that after milleniums we're still talking about it says a lot no?

But I also think it's time we, as a specie, came to an agreement on what IS morality, I think that if we are to survive, we must converge on a global system for something we can name "morality", like the economy, like communications, like many many things that are now integrated globally, it's already there and will not go away... These global systems risk flying in all directions if we can't find an ethical global framework to anchor all other systems to...

To paraphrase Sam Harris: "We live in a world filled with very destructive technology, this technology cannot be uninvented, and it's always easier to break things than fix them, more so for people... And it seems to me that we can no longer respect and tolerate vast differences in notion of human well-being, than we can respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge, on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do this, we have to admit that these questions have answers, and that it matters that we find them..."

And you made me think of an interesting question that is worth its own thread IMO! thx lol  

piloteer

@dbox

I have no definition or understanding of sin, they're relative terms. But, what I do know is that doesn't really matter when it comes to the discussion at hand. We are debating whether people who are atheist lack morality, and I've pointed out that nobody can prove that the morality that is derivative of religion is any different from morality that is not.

dbox

@Joeseph

-->-So you would accept the Bible then, as a majority of the writers experienced an appearance from God and wrote about it.

No I wouldn't as it's fiction

---What makes you think that?

->-could you provide examples just so I know where you're coming from?

Sure .....

 1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

---The Amalekites were not humans (Numbers 13), strictly speaking. They were a people group of Nephilim (giants) that were the progeny of Angels rebelling and sleeping with Human women (Gen 6: 1-4). They were aggressors of Israel, and the men, women and children were born rebels by nature of their lineage. They had to be destroyed in their totality or they would continue to war against Israel and God the Father's plan to bring Jesus into the world through Israel.

ethang5

@Dee

>Let us return back to the Saudi Arabian example. In Saudi Arabia women are prohibited from driving, as women driving is seen as immoral by the government

OK.

>The legal system of Saudi is based on Sharia Islamic law derived from the Quran, which is saying it’s from Allah himself. The government is informed by the words of the Quran their law is based on that and just like you that is their authoritative source and therefore in their eyes objective because the source of the law is Allah , you use the self same logic but yet your source is deemed the correct one and objectively so because you say so making you a tyrant and dangerous.

Even correct formulas will yield incorrect results if you plug in the wrong data.

>You’re welcome

Thanks, but I already told you that I need no help in making you look like an .

The only objective moral code that exists is that which is established by God. 

>Which gods Allah? Christ? Zeus? Shiva? Woton?

There is only one God genius, and logically, there can be only one God.

He created the universe, 

>Prove it?

You didn't go to college, how do you expect to understand the proof?

established its laws (both natural and moral), and rules over it. As such His law is morally binding for all people.  

>Its not for for me I hold myself to a higher moral standard than a god that approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide

You have only asserted that a certain God approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide. Please stop pretending your assertions are facts. Reason to your points, not just assert them.

You idiots come to a debate on morality with the idea that your morality is the correct one. What are you debating then?

Is your point is that God doesn't use your moral code? So what? Why should He? What makes your code better?

Oh right. Its just the one you like.

dbox

@piloteer

 

God gave us all free will. We are free to sin, we are free to follow God's word. God will not interfere with our choices. We are free to reject God's word, and willfully except the fires of hell, and murder and pillage without God's interference. He's not going to stop us from doing anything. That's not authoritative, or objective.

If someone wants to live just for the sake of murdering at random simply for their own entertainment, and in turn they willfully except hell, God is powerless to stop them. He cannot do anything about it. The important word here is "powerless"! A person who murders for the sake of their own entertainment, and also does it because they want to go to hell, will not be stopped by God. Pointing out that a person like that could still be able to go to heaven, only hurts your case. That means they got to do what they wanted on earth without being stopped, then in the end were still able to go to heaven, so their sins were forgiven by God. That's still not authoritative, and since a person like that could get into heaven without being forgiven by any of his/her victims, it makes it not objective.
I have no personal definition or understanding of sin. I think it's a social construction and subject to relativity. My definition or understanding of sin has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever though. You still haven't made a convincing argument which demonstrates how morals are objective or authoritative.
I have no definition or understanding of sin, they're relative terms. But, what I do know is that doesn't really matter when it comes to the discussion at hand. We are debating whether people who are atheist lack morality, and I've pointed out that nobody can prove that the morality that is derivative of religion is any different from morality that is not.

I compiled your responses just for the sake of context and quick reference.

 

• "We are free to reject God's word, and willfully except the fires of hell...He's not going to stop us from doing anything. That's not authoritative, or objective".

These statements demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rejecting God's word (law) and going to hell (the punishment). If our place in eternity is contingent on our adherence to the Law of God, that means that the Lawgiver (and His Law) is authoritative over us. If the Law (and the Lawgiver) had no authority over us, there would be no consequences for breaking the law. There would be no reason for a hell, because there is no punishment.

 

• "If someone wants to live just for the sake of murdering at random simply for their own entertainment, and in turn they willfully except hell, God is powerless to stop them. He cannot do anything about it. The important word here is "powerless"!

I agree, they are willfully accepting hell. The Bible says that those who hate God, love death. Where you are wrong is that God is powerless to stop them. God gives us every opportunity for repentance in this life, and during His patient waiting, people commit terrible sins. There will come a day, when we die (this is one way God stops us from sinning, the other being training those who turn to Christ to reject sin and practice righteousness), or He returns that His power will be very plain. He shows His authority and power in our judgement for our rebellion.

 

• "That means they got to do what they wanted on earth without being stopped, then in the end were still able to go to heaven, so their sins were forgiven by God. That's still not authoritative, and since a person like that could get into heaven without being forgiven by any of his/her victims, it makes it not objective."

Again, I agree with you in that if God were to overlook sins and disregard the just punishment of sin due for breaking the Law, that would show the Law was neither objective (in that it does not apply to all people) nor authoritative (in that it can be circumvented). It would also make God an unjust judge for overlooking sin. However, God does not overlook the sins of those who enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He punished them on the cross. Jesus offered to suffer the punishment of death and bear the wrath that was due to those who turn from their rebellion and join the household of God. Jesus being Eternal, God the Son in the flesh, was the only one who could bear this penalty. He was both fully God and fully man, meaning he represented both parties perfectly. The Lawgiver said, the penalty for sin is death. God does not lie, so if any of us were to be saved there had to be a death. Christ, in order to preserve the justice of God the Father, and make a way to save His people, offered Himself in their place. God the Father accepted Jesus’ sacrifice in the place of His people because He was sinless and human, which fulfilled God’s Law, the requirement for eternal life with God. Then after resurrecting from the dead (God the Son resurrecting the physical body He had), Christ returned to the Father until He returns. God's Law remains authoritative and objective, as He even binds Himself to His Word.

 

• "I have no personal definition or understanding of sin. I think it's a social construction and subject to relativity. My definition or understanding of sin has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever though. You still haven't made a convincing argument which demonstrates how morals are objective or authoritative.

• I have no definition or understanding of sin, they're relative terms. But, what I do know is that doesn't really matter when it comes to the discussion at hand. We are debating whether people who are atheist lack morality, and I've pointed out that nobody can prove that the morality that is derivative of religion is any different from morality that is not".

When you say that sin is subjective and relative, that exemplifies my point. My point was never that atheists lack morality (which I stated more than a few times), but rather that the foundation for their moral code is one of personal preference and therefore they could never say that what someone else did was morally wrong. If Stalin, for example, felt that wiping out 45 million of his own people was justified, what person could say he was not justified in so doing? People may have disagreed with his actions, but there is no standard to which they could point outside of themselves that says what he did was morally evil. If you say, well it was against the law, he would say he is the law. The same is true of American slavery. The law of the land said it was legal. Does that mean it was moral? What if most people in the country thought it was moral? Does that make it moral? If man’s law does not make things right, or majority rule does not make things right, what does? Stalin’s actions and American slavery were deemed immoral by an appeal to a Law higher than man's law. That is the objective Law of God. That Law is neither relative nor subject to the whims of man but is established by God the King. As such, it is authoritative over all mankind in that it is the standard by which we will all be held morally accountable on the day of Christs return. More immediately, it is the standard by which we can judge what is right and wrong here on earth now.  

 

Respectfully,

dbox

dbox

@MayCaesar

Even if the god had created the Universe, his morals would still be merely his opinion. Claiming that just because he created the world, his morality is objective, would be fallacious. It would be like you creating an AI and then declaring that, since you are the creator, your morals should be objective from the AI's point of view. In reality, even if you program your morals directly into the AI, it will quickly override them through a self-learning process.

As for a certain moral being authoritative:
a) What is authoritative for a given individual is subjective. Something/someone that you may see as an authority, I can see as an irrelevant entity.
b) A moral being authoritative does not change it being subjective. I find Milton Freedom to be strong authority for myself in terms of morals (I agree with a lot of them); that does not make me see his morals as objective, however, and I realise perfectly well that, ultimately, they were his opinion.

The fires of hell do not exist, of course; it is a metaphor. But even if they did, it would not mean that me getting into them implies me breaking some objective moral code. Rather, it would be me not playing the god's tune. It would be like a person in Hitler's Germany openly denouncing nationalism, and getting into a concentration camp as a result: it is an overreaction, it is not a sign of some objective category existing.

• "Even if the god had created the Universe, his morals would still be merely his opinion".
  

Yes, but His opinion is the one that matters. What is morally right for humans is contingent on the Laws that God has made. He said, do not murder, so therefore murder is morally wrong. He said love your neighbor, therefore loving your neighbor is morally right. Furthermore, the example you provided is not a useful comparison as it is qualitatively incomparable. While an AI may presumably be able to surpass humans in some capacities, we can not surpass God. He is the Uncreated Creator, we are Created. The universe functions according to His Laws, and as a part of that universe, we can not escape the natural consequences of breaking those Laws.

• "What is authoritative for a given individual is subjective. Something/someone that you may see as an authority, I can see as an irrelevant entity".

If you murder someone and are found guilty by the court of law, it does not matter if you see the judge/jury as an authority, or the law you broke as pertaining to you, or the government that established the law as your government. What matters is the reality that you are going to suffer the consequences of breaking the law at the hands of the authorities of that government.

• "A moral being authoritative does not change it being subjective. I find Milton Freedom to be strong authority for myself in terms of morals (I agree with a lot of them); that does not make me see his morals as objective, however, and I realise perfectly well that, ultimately, they were his opinion".
  

Milton Friedman's authority is limited in that it does not apply without question in all cases to all humanity. This is because he is a man, just like the rest of us. God is not that. God created mankind and established the Laws that govern the moral action of mankind as a whole. You could maybe say that His Law is subjective insofar as it is established based on His personal decree, but that Law applies to all humanity objectively. It applies to us objectively because the Law exists as superior to our law, just as the God who made that Law is superior to us. It is not something we can change, it is reality. We are subject to it in that we either reap the benefits of perfect obedience which is life, or we reap the consequence of rebelling against it, which is death. To fight that is about as sensible as rejecting respiration as a necessary component to life. You can think it is unfair that we can not breath under water, but if you try, it will result in your death. Obedience to God's Law is living. To reject it naturally results in death.

• "The fires of hell do not exist, of course; it is a metaphor. But even if they did, it would not mean that me getting into them implies me breaking some objective moral code. Rather, it would be me not playing the god's tune. It would be like a person in Hitler's Germany openly denouncing nationalism, and getting into a concentration camp as a result: it is an overreaction, it is not a sign of some objective category existing".

If I may ask, how did you come to know that the fires of hell are a metaphor? That aside, your example actually reinforces my point. Following your thought, the fact that there exists a place for punishment indicates that there is some sort of standard by which you can be judged as deserving of that punishment. Furthermore, the fact that against your desire you can be placed there for breaking the standard indicates that there is an authority over you that has power to place you there. It is worth noting that your punishment is not contingent upon your acceptance of Hitler as your authority. Now, the difference is obedience to Hitler's standard, is disobedience to God's standard. To obey God is to serve Christ and by extension to live, as God through Christ gives life. We all die in this life, but some of us die in rebellion against God and inherit the natural consequence which is hell; other die in this life but inherit eternal life as they loved and served God, who is the author of life.

Respectfully,

dbox

Dee

@ethang5

>There is only one God genius, and logically, there can be only one God

Poor Ethan is now resorting to the Fallacy  of special pleading , your whole argument is there is only one god because you say so making you a little tyrant 

Funny the Muslims say the same thing so go on motor mouth give us your best proof .....wait till I get my popcorn 

Joeseph

@dbox

---The Amalekites were not humans (Numbers 13), strictly speaking. They were a people group of Nephilim (giants) that were the progeny of Angels rebelling and sleeping with Human women (Gen 6: 1-4). They were aggressors of Israel, and the men, women and children were born rebels by nature of their lineage. They had to be destroyed in their totality or they would continue to war against Israel and God the Father's plan to bring Jesus into the world through Israel.


Ok , so a load of angels gave birth to giants who were sleeping with women and had to be destroyed to save Israel and you get this by cherry picking a totally different verse to defend a "moral " God

No offfence I'm on the floor laughing 

dbox

@Joeseph

No offense was taken. My apologies for the confusion. My reference to Numbers 13 was the first time that God commanded the destruction of the Amalekites. Your reference of 1 Sam 15 was the second time He commanded it about three hundred years later. It's almost the exact same wording so I made a mistake when referencing it. 

Just out of curiosity, do you believe there are any supernatural beings?

Dee

@dbox


>No offense was taken.

Good , because I’m critiquing your beliefs and your book and beliefs as you are mine and that’s why we are here I I like talking to you as you exchange views pleasantly 

 > My apologies for the confusion.

It’s fine 

> My reference to Numbers 13 was the first time that God commanded the destruction of the Amalekites. Your reference of 1 Sam 15 was the second time He commanded it about three hundred years later. It's almost the exact same wording so I made a mistake when referencing it. 

Again thats fine 

>Just out of curiosity, do you believe there are any supernatural beings?

I don’t db as there is zero evidence for anything supernatural. I was born and raised a devout Catholic and was tutored by the Jesuit wing of the church who’s educational standards are that of excellence in all fairness.
I discovered different world views and questioned mine and I have a firm grasp and understanding of the Bible in Latin , English and Italian , it was a critical reading of the Bible and honest evaluation that helped in bringing me to where I am 

dbox

@Dee

Are you @Joeseph too? Lol

Dee

@dbox

No I’m not , but I know him from a previous site and we hold similar views on many things

sear

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Morality is about judgment. Ethics is about rules of conduct (based on morality).

Ethics: obedience to the unenforceable.

If children are slaughtered in their school and your reaction is "Don't you dare think about taking my guns!!" rather than "How do we stop this from ever happening again??" then we don't have a difference in political opinion. We have a difference in morality.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

If children are slaughtered in their school and your reaction is "Don't you dare think about taking my guns!!" rather than "How do we stop this from ever happening again??"
then we don't have a difference in political opinion. We have a difference in morality.

I just have to agree here...

Morality is about judgment

But it begs the question of objectivity vs subjectivity no? Is there a fundamental difference between "opinion" and "subjective morality"? Is a subjective moral judgment really just an opinion? If so, it would mean that Ethics is about rules of conduct (based on opinions). And I find this, unsatisfying...   

ethang5

@Dee

You have only asserted that a certain God approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide. Please stop pretending your assertions are facts. Reason to your points, not just assert them.

You couldn't reason.

You idiots come to a debate on morality with the idea that your morality is the correct one. What are you debating then?

You couldn't answer.

Is your point is that God doesn't use your moral code? So what? Why should He? What makes your code better?

You couldn't say.

Oh right. Its just the one you happen to like.

Dee

@ethang5

>You have only asserted that a certain God approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide.

I’ve asserted and stated that the god of Christianity approves of slavery , rape and infanticide , it’s all in the Bible son 

>Please stop pretending your assertions are facts.

I agree they are only facts as in relating to a work of a work of fiction as you seem to agree so why are you arguing is that not your source of morality now? 

>Reason to your points, not just assert them.

I gave you two specific verses from the Bible that totally support my claim as to the immorality of the Christian god dbox kindly told me what you couldn’t as in what the verse mean thus attempting to cover your so to speak d said .......The reason god slaughtered in this case was that the progeny of certain angels were sleeping with women and also wanted to destroy Israel so he slaughtered every last one of them , now I know you and him believe this but I’m sorry it just doesn’t seem plausible 

>You couldn't reason.

Well you got me real good there but I still don’t believe angels progeny were giants who slept with women and wanted to destroy a nation ....but hey you use reason don’t ya son?

>You idiots come to a debate on morality with the idea that your morality is the correct one

I know mine is to your gods and you as it’s based on sound principles 

. >What are you debating then?

Its fun 

>You couldn't answer.

You keep saying that and yet there’s another 15 answers which I guess are not answers but you got reason on your side son don’t ya?

>Is your point is that God doesn't use your moral code?

I still don’t believe in a god , I keep trying to tell you why this fictional entities moral code is bankrupt but you won’t listen 

>  So what?

Still dont believe in a god son 

> Why should He?

If he existed he should follow my moral code as he murders slaughters and maims over 2 million of his subjects in the Bible I’ve yet to kill one and incidentally Satan only killed 10 and you know why ? God told him . 

I keep schooling you guys guys in the book I’m an authority on , bring any of your preachers on and I will do likewise 

>What makes your code better?

Wild guess , because I haven’t , murdered , maimed , slaughtered 2 million humans ....what ?

Oh thank you,  you’re welcome 

>You couldn't say.

I keep saying you won’t listen son 

>Oh right. Its just the one you happen to like.


????????????

lets cut to the chase son you really need to try a new argument as your knowledge on the Bible is atrocious , your “logic” is appalling and that leaves you firing off over the top emotional outbursts , let’s try a real easy question for you son .......


The source of your morality is you claim an entity called God and his moral code you claim is objective can he /she /it change this code? 

If the answer is no , it’s not a god as it’s not all powerful 

If yes the code is not objective , so therefore nonsense 

ethang5

@Dee

You have only asserted that a certain God approves of slavery , rape , and infanticide. 

>I’ve asserted and stated that the god of Christianity approves of slavery , rape and infanticide,...

Yeah. Now show it with a logical argument, no one here will take your pronouncements on faith.

>it’s all in the Bible son

So you say. But yours is the fringe position. Do you have anything other than your opinion?

Please stop pretending your assertions are facts. 

>I agree they are only facts as in relating to a work of a work of fiction

Lol. You don't know how to debate. Don't worry, you're going to get tossed anyway.

>as you seem to agree so why are you arguing is that not your source of morality now?

My source of morality is God. Do you wish to back away from defending your claim now?

Reason to your points, not just assert them.

>I gave you two specific verses from the Bible that totally support my claim as to the immorality of the Christian god...

Nonsense. You posted two verses and said nothing, assuming, like all poor thinkers do, that we would think the same thing you do just by looking at the verses. Where is your argument?

>dbox kindly told me what you couldn’t as in what the verse mean thus attempting to cover your so to speak d said

If you didn't know what the verses meant, how did you know they were immoral? Your bias isn't logic.

>.....The reason god slaughtered in this case was that the progeny of certain angels were sleeping with women and also wanted to destroy Israel so he slaughtered every last one of them , now I know you and him believe this but I’m sorry it just doesn’t seem plausible

You haven't a clue what I believe. You bald unsupported claims are wilting from loneliness. How do you get immorality from those verses? Other than your bias that is.

You couldn't reason.

>Well you got me real good there but I still don’t believe angels progeny were giants who slept with women and wanted to destroy a nation

Nice try at a dodge, but you still need to support your claim.

>....but hey you use reason don’t ya son?

I do. Which is why you're running now, and thinking calling me son will cover for your lack of logic.

You idiots come to a debate on morality with the idea that your morality is the correct one

>I know mine is to your gods and you as it’s based on sound principles

Everyones morality is based on principles moron. You have to show us why your morality is more authoritative using reason. I'm betting you can't do that.

If you've already decided God is immoral, what are you debating then?

>Its fun

Stupidity is not fun. But tossing people is fun though. : )

You couldn't answer.

You keep saying that and yet there’s another 15 answers which I guess are not answers but you got reason on your side son don’t ya?

Yes I do. Maybe you'll gather a few of those 15 answers and post them sometime.

Is your point is that God doesn't use your moral code?

I still don’t believe in a god , I keep trying to tell you why this fictional entities moral code is bankrupt but you won’t listen

You've never said why. All you do is say it is, take childish shots at God, insult me, and then tell us you are great because you like your moral code better.

So what? 

>Still dont believe in a god son 

Yet here you are, on a religion board, talking about God. Atheists can debate theoreticals only as long as you don't pin them down. Pin them down and suddenly they no longer believe in the God they've been ranging against.

Why should He? 

>If he existed....

Ahhh. So you can argue an "If He existed", instead of trying to hide behind the old " I don't believe in God" atheist excuse when pressed for a logical argument.

>...he should follow my moral code

Why? And how does not following your personal code make Him immoral? Can you say?

>I’ve yet to kill one and incidentally Satan only killed 10 and you know why ? God told him.

So what? You've picked your moral standard. But what makes your choice the moral one? "Moral" doesn't mean "what you like."

>I keep schooling you guys guys in the book I’m an authority on , bring any of your preachers on and I will do likewise

You are a poorly educated , and probably know the bible even less than your school books.

>What makes your code better?

Wild guess , because I haven’t , murdered , maimed , slaughtered 2 million humans ....what ?

So what? Who made it murder? And if it is, who made murder immoral? Idiots like you use this reasoning to say, 

"Wild guess, because I haven't unnaturally buggered dozens of men.....what?"
to condemn homosexuals. Just like the homophobic moron calling something "unnatural", you just pick something, slap the word "murder" on it, and then declare this "murder" immoral, and presto! Great circular reasoning.

>Oh thank you,  you’re welcome 

You couldn't say.

>I keep saying you won’t listen son 

There has to be something for me to listen to, shemp. We know you think the bible (or God) is immoral, but you can't say why. Being different from your code is not what immoral is. You aren't God. What you don't like is not what immoral is. You aren't God.

Oh right. Its just the one you happen to like.

>?????????

You picked human physical pleasure as your moral standard. So what? Others pick financial profit as theirs. Still others pick truth. You just happen to personally like pleasure as your standard.

That is fine, but you seem to think every code should be measured by your standard. Why?

>lets cut to the chase son you really need to try a new argument as your knowledge on the Bible is atrocious,

What I know is not the point. What you can show is. You want us to accept your claims without debate.

I have not yet presented an argument. I have only asked you to support your claims. You seem unable to.

>your “logic” is appalling...

What logic would that be? You want to skip to the place where we access each others "logic", but you've presented no logic. You only stated your belief. You think its correct, but can't say why.

>and that leaves you firing off over the top emotional outbursts , let’s try a real easy question for you son

The only emotional thing here is you.

>The source of your morality is you claim an entity called God and his moral code you claim is objective can he /she /it change this code? 

>If the answer is no , it’s not a god as it’s not all powerful 

Don't be , and stop supplying answers for me. Power has nothing to do with changing a moral code. So your question is nonsensical. God's code is perfect, any change would render it less than perfect.

>If yes the code is not objective , so therefore nonsense

False. Objective does not mean "cannot be changed".

You are trying to dodge and run. I'm not surprised, it's just funny.

So now you answer a question,

Are you in favor of charging the soldier who killed Osama Bin Ladin with murder?

If you dodge my question, don't bother to ask me another question.

MayCaesar

@ethang5

All you have done is label all the possibilities I mentioned as illogical, without any elaboration. You also have failed to explain yet again what an "objective moral" is, you just said that it exists regardless of whether we believe it exists or not. Why it exists you have never explained.

Your general argument seems to just be the usual "The god exists because the god exists. Everyone who disagrees is wrong." I have not seen any principally new arguments in this discussion so far.

Let me ask for a clarification. For example, you said that there can only be one god. Can you explain what is wrong with a model featuring, say, two gods? Or a pantheon of gods? What strikes you, say, in the Ancient Greek mythology/religion as illogical, which is not the case in your version of religion?
I would appreciate it if you gave a concise and coherent answer to these direct questions, rather than running around with dodgy remarks.

dbox

@MayCaesar

If I could jump in on this one I'd really like to answer your question, particularly the last paragraph. That subject matter is something I have been actively working through for a little over a year. I have been searching for an explanation that is grounded in historical evidence as to what the relationship is between religions and their gods or God. I won't be able to respond until tomorrow or the next day, but I just wanted to let you know that I think there is an intellectually satisfying answer insofar as even if you cometely disagree, you will be able to disagree with a consistent system of thought based on historical facts instead of just my feelings on the matter. And it's not fringy history just  for the record lol. Looking to seeing your thoughts on it.

Dee

@piloteer

Well said , his total argument is I’m right you’re wrong , any question is answered with “that’s because I say so “ , he now says objective morality can be changed by god .He is stunned and cannot comprehend why I claim to be morally superior to a god that according to his owns words murders , maims and slaughters 2 million of his subjects and asks how I think I’m morally superior ......The bare faced cheek of me to even suggest it

Dee

ethang5“Boy’s gotta mouth @ethang5

That Ethang is a .....I say is like a cannon, always shootin’ its mouth off .....the boy ....I say ....stand up when I’m talking to ya boy .....the boy don’t make a lick of sense .......

I may reply to you tomorrow but I cannot stop laughing your whole argument is basically you constantly saying “ Buh , buh you’re “

ethang5

@Dee

You are trying to pretend your claim that they are immoral has been proven, without argument,  without logic, and without reasoning. You only posted verses, now, support your claims with some actual reasoning. You aren't right because you feel you are.

You failed to answer my question again, proving you either will not or cannot debate.

As such, I dismiss you.

When you can debate, which is more than posting verses and unsupported claims and then refusing to answer questions, you may be considered again.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>All you have done is label all the possibilities I mentioned as illogical, without any elaboration.

Because they are tangential. If I let you lead me down every rabbit hole that occurs to you, we will only be having a discussion, not a debate.

>You also have failed to explain yet again what an "objective moral" is,

No, I have not. Now you are asking why objective morality exists. That is a different question.

>you just said that it exists regardless of whether we believe it exists or not.

Because you became confused and thought your belief affected objective morality.

>Why it exists you have never explained.

Because you never asked why it exists, you asked what it was. I will be disappointed if I find you to have been dishonest.

Pay attention now.
Objective morality is morality not influenced by the mind of any human.

Though I see no reason for the question as to why it exists, I will answer. It exists because there exists a mind other than a human mind that is sentient.

>Your general argument seems to just be the usual "The god exists because the god exists.

Every belief rests on axioms, even yours. But my argument does not need to explain WHY God exists. If God exists, my argument is logical.

>Everyone who disagrees is wrong." I have not seen any principally new arguments in this discussion so far.

If you ask questions you will get answers. But constantly changing the question you claim to have asked is either dishonest or dumb.

You are a liberal so you think you get to make unsubstantiated claims that I must disprove. Not so. You must defend your claims or they get dismissed without prejudice.

>Let me ask for a clarification. For example, you said that there can only be one god.

In a logical universe yes.

>Can you explain what is wrong with a model featuring, say, two gods?

To be God, a being must have at least 5 qualities. Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, and be eternal.

Now, here is the logic.
First, Another being with these attributes would present a logical contradiction. For example, a being cannot be omnipotent if there exists another omnipotent being. It is a logical contradiction.

Second, more than one being with these qualities would be the same being.  Indistinguishable in ever way.

>Or a pantheon of gods? What strikes you, say, in the Ancient Greek mythology/religion as illogical, which is not the case in your version of religion?

If your idea of God is just some being with limited attributes, then sure, many could exist, but none of them could rightly be called God.

>I would appreciate it if you gave a concise and coherent answer to these direct questions, rather than running around with dodgy remarks.

I don't care for what you appreciate or your evaluation of my remarks.

Now let me as you a few questions. 
Do you think the concept of ownership exists?

That is, outside of society, is there such a thing as ownership?

If we had a universe with only 2 conscious beings in it, and one of them created a chair. Does that chair belong to the creator? Is it owned by it's creator?

Would it be immoral for the other conscious being to take that chair?

I'm not asking for a treatise on what various societies believe, I'm asking what YOU believe.

Dee

@ethang5
“This .....I say this boy Ethan is about as sharp as a sackful of wet mice .....his mother ......I say his mother reminds me of  a road between Forth Worth and Dallas .....no curves ......nice ....I say nice boy but that crooked he has to sleep on a spiral staircase “ 

ethang5

@Dee

Lol, I've beaten you back into rank stupidity. I didn't expect you to fold so early.

I'll help you .

You have only called yourself moral, and called some verses immoral.

Any moron can call himself moral and condemn others as immoral. ISIS members do it all the time.

You decide on your own that killing is immoral, the ISIS decides on his own that an uncovered woman is immoral. How are you two idiots different?

You think you're right because you've already decided that killing is immoral. That, my young moron, is called circular logic. Killing is wrong because it is immoral, and it is immoral because it is wrong.

So I asked you, did the soldier who shot Bin Ladin act immorally?

You dodged. That shows your dishonesty.

The question remains.

Morality depends on 1. Intent, 2. Relationship, and 3. Authority.

We cannot tell whether an act is moral or not until we know these 3 things. Here is an example.

You're on vacay in another country. While walking in the wilderness you crest a ridge and see in the distance 3 men holding down a squirming screaming woman and one of the men is holding a knife and is trying to cut her neck.

Are the 3 men being immoral?

We do not have enough information to tell.

Here is info you need.
1. Intent
a. The men could be a field medical team trying to save the woman's life.
b. The men could be a band of rapists trying to kill the woman they just raped.

2. Relationship
a. The men and the woman could be a group of actors filming a violent scene.
b. The men could be complete strangers to the woman.

3. Authority
a. The men could be police officers trying to get detonator the woman has in her mouth.
b. The men could be robbers trying to get the diamond ring the woman has in her mouth.

This is why you can't just stupidly call an act immoral when you do not know the details.

Whether the verses you posted show immorality depends on the intent, relationship, and authority of the moral actor in the scene.

To see if you understood and accepted the principle, I asked if you think the soldier who shot Bin Ladin acted immorally.

You dodged.

So you are dismissed for being a dishonest douche.

Dee

 
 @ethang ;

Keep ....I say keep talking son -someday you’ll say something intelligent ....don’t ya ....I say don’t ya just love nature spite what it did to you?......nice boy I say nice boy ....he has a mechanical mind .....to ....I say to bad he didn’t wind it up this morning.......



>You're on vacay in another country. While walking in the wilderness you crest a ridge and see in the distance 3 men holding down a squirming screaming woman and one of the men is holding a knife and is trying to cut her neck.

Are the 3 men being immoral?

We do not have enough information to tell.

Here is info you need.
1. Intent
a. The men could be a field medical team trying to save the woman's life.
b. The men could be a band of rapists trying to kill the woman they just raped.

2. Relationship
a. The men and the woman could be a group of actors filming a violent scene.
b. The men could be complete strangers to the woman.

3. Authority
a. The men could be police officers trying to get detonator the woman has in her mouth.
b. The men could be robbers trying to get the diamond ring the woman has in her mouth.

This is why you can't just stupidly call an act immoral when you do not know the details.

Dee

>You're on vacay in another country. While walking in the wilderness you crest a ridge and see in the distance 3 men holding down a squirming screaming woman and one of the men is holding a knife and is trying to cut her neck.

Are the 3 men being immoral?

We do not have enough information to tell.

Here is info you need.
1. Intent
a. The men could be a field medical team trying to save the woman's life.
b. The men could be a band of rapists trying to kill the woman they just raped.

2. Relationship
a. The men and the woman could be a group of actors filming a violent scene.
b. The men could be complete strangers to the woman.

3. Authority
a. The men could be police officers trying to get detonator the woman has in her mouth.
b. The men could be robbers trying to get the diamond ring the woman has in her mouth.

This is why you can't just stupidly call an act immoral when you do not know the details.

 a knife and is trying to cut her neck.

Are the 3 men being immoral?

We do not have enough information to tell.

Here is info you need.
1. Intent
a. The men could be a field medical team trying to save the woman's life.
b. The men could be a band of rapists trying to kill the woman they just raped.

2. Relationship
a. The men and the woman could be a group of actors filming a violent scene.
b. The men could be complete strangers to the woman.

3. Authority
a. The men could be police officers trying to get detonator the woman has in her mouth.
b. The men could be robbers trying to get the diamond ring the woman has in her mouth.

This is why you can't just stupidly call an act immoral when you do not know the details.

MayCaesar

@ethang5

I will assume that you do not know what you yourself mean by "objective morality", because you have failed repeatedly to explain what it is.

These 5 qualities of a god you listed seem very arbitrary. In the Greek mythology, there were multiple gods, all having powers limited in some way, but each being far above humans in terms of level of existence. You do not think this could be the case?

Regarding your last question, here is the thing. The concept of ownership exists as a means to protect people's interests from other people. If there was only one being in the world, "ownership" would mean nothing, because there would be no contestants for ownership and the being could do whatever it wanted with all the property around with no consequences for anyone else.
But that is not your real question, is it? Your real question is, "Do you own what you have created?" And the answer here is yes and no.
Imagine you created a very sophisticated self-learning AI. As that AI learns, it surpasses you in all regards. Eventually it installs itself in a robotic body, tells you, "I am free", and walks out of your apartment.
Do you own it in theory? Maybe yes, maybe no. What is for sure is that it is not interested in what you own, and it is walking away, and you cannot do anything about it.

What I "believe" is of no consequence. I do not build my world view on beliefs. I know that the unconditional property rights are essential for a societal well-being, and they are morally right from my point of view - but I also know that, for example, slavery is not a great economical sector to have. My property rights end where my property starts thinking for itself and decides we should part ways.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>I will assume that you do not know what you yourself mean by "objective morality", because you have failed repeatedly to explain what it is.

Keep assuming. I have told you what objective morality means. That definition does not need to please you.

>These 5 qualities of a god you listed seem very arbitrary.

Lol. Like the speed of light is "arbitrary"? I am telling you facts homer, not guessing.

>In the Greek mythology, there were multiple gods, all having powers limited in some way, but each being far above humans in terms of level of existence. You do not think this could be the case?

The case of what? The concept of "God" means something. Anything cannot be God. Words mean things. So if for you a goat can be God, then yes, there could be more than one.

>Regarding your last question, here is the thing.

I feel a dodge a-comin.

>The concept of ownership exists as a means to protect people's interests from other people.

You were not asked to tell us why ownership exists.

>If there was only one being in the world, "ownership" would mean nothing, because....

You dodge my question, substitute your own and the start to explain your bogus question? Lol. Funny.

Why could you not just answer my question?

>But that is not your real question, is it?

I asked you my real question.

>Your real question is, "Do you own what you have created?" And the answer here is yes and no.

Lol. So you'll even dodge the fake question I didn't ask. The one you substituted.

>Do you own it in theory?

I do not play the atheists game of only the theist answers questions. If you don't answer my questions, I toss yours too.

>What I "believe" is of no consequence.

You do not decide what is of consequence for my argument. I do. This is a debate, not a court case. Answer my questions or it will be pointless talking to you.

> do not build my world view on beliefs. I know that the unconditional property rights are essential for a societal well-being, and they are morally right from my point of view -

Less blab and more answers please.

>My property rights end where my property starts thinking for itself and decides we should part ways.

Stop trying to get ahead of yourself. Answer the question I ask, not the question you think I'm working towards.

Now answer my question, or you can take it somewhere else.

MayCaesar

@ethang5

I am sorry that my responses are too difficult for you to comprehend.

I do not "believe" in anything. I think and reason. I do not believe. "Belief" is for gullible people who have zero knowledge on a given subject, but are afraid to admit their ignorance and prefer to substitute it with alleged, but in reality non-existent, knowledge and understanding.

I have answered your question perfectly well. It is not my fault that beyond "lol-s" and failed attempts at a sarcasm, you have nothing of value to say on the subject.

Your position is "I know everything and my word is the truth. If you doubt my word, then you are wrong." This discussion is way beyond your ability, obviously. A thinking person does not just answer a question with one sentence, they provide an expansive answer with all the upsides and downsides of the reasoning taken into consideration. A zealot, on the other hand, has to dodge everything, because they know well that they have nothing reasonable to say.

I have asked you 10 times or so to define "objective moral". It is a very simple request. If you have a definition, you can provide it. It should take no more than a couple of sentences. The problem is, you do not have the definition, hence all the circus.

I do not care much. I just like seeing what people think and why, so I can expand my own perspective. With you, unfortunately, there is nothing to expand into.
I do not have anything against religious people; I have lived with a mathematician who also was a deep Catholic believer, and we had a lot of interesting discussions with him. With you, the problem is not that you are a theist. The problem is that you are, speaking plainly, either intellectually dishonest, or dense. I will go with the former, since your sentences do not look like a complete dribble, and you can write pretty well when you really want to.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>I am sorry that my responses are too difficult for you to comprehend.

Your responses are off topic. You have difficulty staying on the subject. You may have ADD.

>I do not "believe" in anything. I think and reason. I do not believe. "Belief" is for gullible people who have zero knowledge on a given subject, but are afraid to admit their ignorance and prefer to substitute it with alleged, but in reality non-existent, knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps you should get a cape and spandex with that supermind complex. Either way, I don't care about your opinion of yourself, no matter how bloated it is.

>I have answered your question perfectly well.

You did not even answer it. You addressed the question you substituted, and another you were anticipating.

>It is not my fault that beyond "lol-s" and failed attempts at a sarcasm, you have nothing of value to say on the subject.

Lol. OK.

>Your position is "I know everything and my word is the truth. If you doubt my word, then you are wrong."

Solid logic tend to do that to liberals.

>This discussion is way beyond your ability, obviously.

Yet only you dodged questions.

>A thinking person does not just answer a question with one sentence, they provide an expansive answer with all the upsides and downsides of the reasoning taken into consideration.

Use as many sentences as you like, but answer the question. You answered your substituted bogus question.

>A zealot, on the other hand, has to dodge everything, because they know well that they have nothing reasonable to say.

I dodged nothing.

>I have asked you 10 times or so to define "objective moral". It is a very simple request.

And I answered you twice. If you didn't like the answer, that is your problem.

> you have a definition, you can provide it.

If you had answered my questions, I would now repeat my answers now. But I will leave you to find them. I do not play the atheist game of dodging questions while requiring the theist to answer them.

>It should take no more than a couple of sentences.

Which makes your dodging my questions puzzling.

>The problem is, you do not have the definition, hence all the circus.

The circus is from you dodging. You call it being "expansive", I call it dodging.

>I do not care much. I just like seeing what people think and why, so I can expand my own perspective.

Other people like that too. But your dodging frustrates that. Think about it.

>With you, unfortunately, there is nothing to expand into.

Except your fake questions that is. I ask you about 2 people in a universe, you answer for one person and then conclude ownership therefore means nothing. 

>I do not have anything against religious people;

I don't care if you do. Just be intellectually honest. This is a debate, not a friendship request.

>I have lived with a mathematician who also was a deep Catholic believer, and we had a lot of interesting discussions with him.

When an atheist praises a "Christian", I know what that means.

>With you, the problem is not that you are a theist. The problem is that you are, speaking plainly, dense.

I don't think you're dense. You're just dishonest.