Does the Noahic Flood negate the reality of free will? The atheist says yes. What is the Truth?

Joeseph

HERE IS THE QUESTION  ON HERE COWARDLY CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO ANSWER INSTEAD PREFERRING TO ATTACK ATHEISTS.......

If so in the Christian worldview how is it ever "morally " good for a god to watch a child being raped and not intervene

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; It is has nothing to do with one's morality to observe the evil in this World and Elohim provides free will to those created in His spiritual image; therefore, evil exists because you exist and evil will be dealt with at Judgment by our Holy Creator as you will stand in that Judgment as an unrepentant atheist having rejected Jesus as your Messiah for the forgiveness of sin.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, you do NOT understand that our entire creation is predicated upon WAR and we are in the midst of a most horrific WAR of cosmic proportions and you have been uniquely selected as a valid participant in that WAR and your sole purpose in this temporary life is to "choose" whom you will serve and act upon that free will choice. Elohim, our Creator, desires that you "choose" life in His Messiah who entered Time for the specific purpose of "destroying the work of Satan" (John 6:29; 1 John 3:8b). 

A WAR your god created to serve it's own purposes. Your god created an enemy to make WAR with and called it Satan. It knew before it created Satan that Satan would declare WAR because that's what god created Satan to do by making Satan bound to gods foreknowledge by predestination.

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

HERE IS THE QUESTION  ON HERE COWARDLY CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO ANSWER INSTEAD PREFERRING TO ATTACK ATHEISTS.......

If so in the Christian worldview how is it ever "morally " good for a god to watch a child being raped and not intervene

The solution is judgement day, heaven and hell. A final accounting for all good and bad. A more challenging question that demands a response is this "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".

Factfinder

@mpaul73

The solution is judgement day, heaven and hell. A final accounting for all good and bad. A more challenging question that demands a response is that "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".

A brain with common sense. If you need bronze aged herdsmen to tell you child abuse is wrong then you have no business lecturing others on moral foundations.

Barnardot

@mpaul73 ;A more challenging question that demands a response is this "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".

And here you go gaslighting again. The question was asked and you have the lack of gusts to answer the question and blow it back with another question.

Just shows the typical lack of morals and disgusting nature of die hard religious nits doesn't it? Not an honest moral bone in there bodies at all.

mpaul73

Factfinder said:

@mpaul73

The solution is judgement day, heaven and hell. A final accounting for all good and bad. A more challenging question that demands a response is that "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".

A brain with common sense. If you need bronze aged herdsmen to tell you child abuse is wrong then you have no business lecturing others on moral foundations.

i agree it's wrong, of course. But what makes it wrong?

Factfinder

@mpaul73

i agree it's wrong, of course. But what makes it wrong?

The fact that a major consensus across all walks of humanity generally agree it's wrong to abuse children. It's not 100% across the board though as there are always exceptions to the rules so some will resist the consensus. That's what demonstrates the subjective nature of morality. There is no evidence for anything beyond that.

mpaul73

ok, so child abuse is subjectively wrong and it's "wrongness" is based upon "majority consensus"? But yet you say:

"If you need bronze aged herdsmen to tell you child abuse is wrong then you have no business lecturing others on moral foundations"

Please reconcile these. 

Factfinder

@mpaul73

Reconcile them? To what? The point is people come to that same conclusion without ever reading it from the bible because nothing connects human morality with any deity. Nothing detectable or verifiable. Human morality is the ground such as it is. That's the direction evidence points to. If you honestly didn't realize child abuse was wrong till you read it in the bible then you shouldn't lecture others. I stand by that statement.

mpaul73

Factfinder said:

@mpaul73

Reconcile them? To what? The point is people come to that same conclusion without ever reading it from the bible because nothing connects human morality with any deity. Nothing detectable or verifiable. Human morality is the ground such as it is. That's the direction evidence points to. If you honestly didn't realize child abuse was wrong till you read it in the bible then you shouldn't lecture others. I stand by that statement.

You said that child abuse is subjectively wrong based on majority consensus and also that people can recognize it as wrong without needing the Bible. If moral wrongness is based on majority consensus, then it’s subjective and can change with societal shifts.

However, your statement suggests that recognizing child abuse as wrong is an objective truth independent of religious texts. I’m asking you to reconcile these points: How can morality be both subjective (based on consensus) and also recognized as an objective truth? Without a transcendent foundation, what ensures that moral values remain consistent and not subject to change with societal opinions?

Also in debate are we obligated (or expected) to be honest during debates? If you say "yes" on what basis?

Factfinder

mpaul73 said:

Factfinder said:

@mpaul73

Reconcile them? To what? The point is people come to that same conclusion without ever reading it from the bible because nothing connects human morality with any deity. Nothing detectable or verifiable. Human morality is the ground such as it is. That's the direction evidence points to. If you honestly didn't realize child abuse was wrong till you read it in the bible then you shouldn't lecture others. I stand by that statement.

You said that child abuse is subjectively wrong based on majority consensus and also that people can recognize it as wrong without needing the Bible. If moral wrongness is based on majority consensus, then it’s subjective and can change with societal shifts.

However, your statement suggests that recognizing child abuse as wrong is an objective truth independent of religious texts. I’m asking you to reconcile these points: How can morality be both subjective (based on consensus) and also recognized as an objective truth? Without a transcendent foundation, what ensures that moral values remain consistent and not subject to change with societal opinions?

Also in debate are we obligated (or expected) to be honest during debates? If you say "yes" on what basis?

I never argued for objective morals being in existence. Your the one slipping in the word 'objective' into my argument. The fact that I correctly pointed out people come to moral scruples independently from the bible in no way implies objectivity. You simply incorrectly inferred that and attributed it to me. I am saying there is nothing transcending from your god that you have evidence of. 

mpaul73

hmm, you saying "if you need bronze aged herdsmen to tell you child abuse is wrong then you have no business lecturing others on moral foundations" don't sound like a subjective position? Explain.

Factfinder

@mpaul73

Pretty straight forward. If you lived your life and didn't realize child abuse is wrong till you read it in the bible you're not a good source of commonly accepted morals. Little slow on the learning curve. Of course if you so chose you can rationalize that it is moral as morals are subjective. 

mpaul73

@Factfinder
obviously you are lacking the ability to think on a deeper philosophical level (willingly or unwillingly?). I'll assume the best here.
"If you lived your life and didn't realize child abuse is wrong till you read it in the bible you're not a good source of commonly accepted morals"
So, again, what is moral (or not immoral) to determine "commonly accepted morals"? So, child abuse being "wrong" is completely subjective? For clarification, when I say "subjective" i mean that it is not wrong independent of time and place.

mpaul73

more interestingly. in your worldview, where do you even originate the idea of right and wrong???

Joeseph

@mpaul73

***The solution is judgement day, heaven and hell. A final accounting for all good and bad. A more challenging question that demands a response is this "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".***

Well done that's 15 times now you have refused to answer the question.

Here is what you refuse to answer .
.....

HERE IS THE QUESTION ON HERE COWARDLY CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO ANSWER INSTEAD PREFERRING TO ATTACK ATHEISTS.......

If so in the Christian worldview how is it ever "morally " good for a god to watch a child being raped and not intervene?

So again is your gods decision not to intervene a morally good one?

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Here is what you refuse to answer .

.....

HERE IS THE QUESTION ON HERE COWARDLY CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO ANSWER INSTEAD PREFERRING TO ATTACK ATHEISTS.......

If so in the Christian worldview how is it ever "morally " good for a god to watch a child being raped and not intervene?

So again is your gods decision not to intervene a morally good one?

Factfinder

mpaul73 said:

more interestingly. in your worldview, where do you even originate the idea of right and wrong???

Where do you?

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

@mpaul73

***The solution is judgement day, heaven and hell. A final accounting for all good and bad. A more challenging question that demands a response is this "without God, what is your moral foundation for saying child abuse is wrong?".***

Well done that's 15 times now you have refused to answer the question.

Here is what you refuse to answer .
.....

HERE IS THE QUESTION ON HERE COWARDLY CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO ANSWER INSTEAD PREFERRING TO ATTACK ATHEISTS.......

If so in the Christian worldview how is it ever "morally " good for a god to watch a child being raped and not intervene?

So again is your gods decision not to intervene a morally good one?

everything he does is good. what is YOUR definition of good?

Factfinder

mpaul73 said:

@Factfinder
obviously you are lacking the ability to think on a deeper philosophical level (willingly or unwillingly?). I'll assume the best here.
"If you lived your life and didn't realize child abuse is wrong till you read it in the bible you're not a good source of commonly accepted morals"
So, again, what is moral (or not immoral) to determine "commonly accepted morals"? So, child abuse being "wrong" is completely subjective? For clarification, when I say "subjective" i mean that it is not wrong independent of time and place.

obviously you are lacking the ability to think on a deeper philosophical level (willingly or unwillingly?). I'll assume the best here.
"If you lived your life and didn't realize child abuse is wrong till you read it in the bible you're not a good source of commonly accepted morals"
So, again, what is moral (or not immoral) to determine "commonly accepted morals"? So, child abuse being "wrong" is completely subjective? For clarification, when I say "subjective" i mean that it is not wrong independent of time and place.

You lack the ability to articulate exactly what it is you're trying to prove. You're not making sense. We are in time and space and of course I can think philosophically. Thinking that morals transcends from an imaginary being into a mythical elf book isn't an example of being philosophical, it's day dreaming at best. Delusional at worst. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph @Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast My God sees all...He allows evil to run its course as He allows you to live and enjoy the fruits of His blessings upon all hoping that some will repent and turn to Him for life...it is not good that children be raped and murdered and Elohim will deal with these atrocities at Judgment but man's free will reigns paramount for eschatological purposes; therefore, Elohim endures our evil. You are headed to death in Hell in your rejection of Jesus as Messiah and you are therefore evil in Time...no less than the one who abuses others.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; A WAR that manifest due free will and a WAR that involves eschatological imperatives of which you are not aware yet you mock, blaspheme, ridicule, express hatred and loathing for our Creator and for this you will surely reap what you're sowing. Elohim is Creator-God and Sovereign...you are NOT!

 

Joeseph

@mpaul73


everything he does is good. what is YOUR definition of good?


So your god  saying you may buy , sell , beat and mistreat your slaves is good ........do explain?

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw


@Joeseph @Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast My God sees all...



Maybe then you can explain how the d-mb f-ck didn't know how his creations were going to behave when he created them , so in a rage he slaughtered them to start again.........

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Elohim never said mistreating anyone is "good."

MayCaesar

Gotta love Christian morality. Someone upsets you by not kissing your feet with enough passion - just wipe out 99.999999% of the global population, including animals and plants. That will get the remaining ones to do the kissing properly!

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; @Joeseph @Factfinder   Again, your spiritual ignorance and absence of faith and knowledge beguile you and mock you in the foolishness of atheism. The Flood is an eschatological imperative concerning causation for origin of Time and matter and the wickedness and victory of the Devil over the Adamic/Noahic generations (Genesis 6:5) who would NOT be permitted to fulfill their ordination as progenitors of the Messiah due the defiled seed with the demonic. 

Noah found righteousness (a right standing) with Elohim due his faithfulness and the human genome was begun again through that seed which ultimately birthed the Messiah via Judah born specifically to engage in battle with the Devil (1 John 3:8b)...you don't know, believe, comprehend, these things because you are dead spiritually, you have chosen to be an enemy of Elohim...you are blind, lost, defiled, a vulgar enemy of all that is good and holy and righteous...and you will surely reap what you're sowing in your arrogance and disobedience.

 

MayCaesar

Oh yes, thinking that extermination of the entire humanity except for 8 people is bad - that is demonic. Christianity, after all, is tasked with brainwashing millions of people so the king can lead them to slaughter other brainwashed people. Have to prime them for being okay with the bloodshed.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE AGAIN AS A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN: "@Joeseph ; Elohim never said mistreating anyone is "good." 

First thing Bible DUMB Rickey, are you to embarrassed to use the name "JESUS" instead of "Elohim" because that puts your god Jesus in name to the forefront of his murderous brutal killings?


Using your revealing quote above, " JESUS never said mistreating anyone is "good." 

Okay, then why did JESUS go back on his word and drowned his entire JEWISH Creation in his Great Flood, where he murdered innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies, as he watched them die a horrible drowning death as the babies cried out to their mothers for help? (Hebrews 4:13)


RICKEY, DO YOU UNDERSTAND IN HOW LOGICALLY EASY IT IS FOR THE ATHEIST TO MAKE YOU THE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN FOOL BECAUSE OF YOUR PRIMITIVE THINKING BRONZE AND IRON AGE CHRISTIANITY THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND AS SHOWN AD INFINITUM? 







.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; The Noahic Flood is not abortion. Try harder.

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

@mpaul73


everything he does is good. what is YOUR definition of good?


So your god  saying you may buy , sell , beat and mistreat your slaves is good ........do explain?

Again, what position are you in to question me about matters or good or evil when your own worldview reduces moral choices to nothing more than pure subjectivity? One person prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream, one person prefer loving people over harming them. What's the difference? If you want to have a discussion about good and evil first give me a foundation that makes good and evil meaningful.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

***Elohim never said mistreating anyone is "good."***

He did   he said you may beat your slaves Just for starts.....

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The flood is a tall tale with zero evidence to support it .....

Joeseph

@mpaul73

***Again, what position are you in to question me about matters or good or evil when your own worldview reduces moral choices to nothing more than pure subjectivity?***

That's called facing up to facts and the reasons christians pick and choose which of gods moral dictates to follow.


 ***One person prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream, one person prefer loving people over harming them. What's the difference? ***

The difference is the only not knowing the difference between harm and love seems to.be christians who agree gods decision to watch kids be raped and do nothing is a morally good one

****If you want to have a discussion about good and evil first give me a foundation that makes good and evil meaningful.***

But we had that discussion you refused to answer questions on your position and I've told you several times what informs my moral choices , I feel you're trolling at this stage

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

@mpaul73

***Again, what position are you in to question me about matters or good or evil when your own worldview reduces moral choices to nothing more than pure subjectivity?***

That's called facing up to facts and the reasons christians pick and choose which of gods moral dictates to follow.


 ***One person prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream, one person prefer loving people over harming them. What's the difference? ***

The difference is the only not knowing the difference between harm and love seems to.be christians who agree gods decision to watch kids be raped and do nothing is a morally good one

****If you want to have a discussion about good and evil first give me a foundation that makes good and evil meaningful.***

But we had that discussion you refused to answer questions on your position and I've told you several times what informs my moral choices , I feel you're trolling at this stage

***That's called facing up to facts and the reasons christians pick and choose which of gods moral dictates to follow.***

Are you denying that your naturalistic worldview reduces morality down to subjective personal preferences?

***The difference is the only not knowing the difference between harm and love seems to.be christians who agree gods decision to watch kids be raped and do nothing is a morally good one***

Let me try again because you are not addressing the issue. If your concept of morality is subjective (personal preference) what is problem with someone choosing hate over love as their way of living their life? Is love objectively a better path than hate? If you think so give a reason why it is without being subjective.

***But we had that discussion you refused to answer questions on your position and I've told you several times what informs my moral choices , I feel you're trolling at this stage***

And again I am trying to point out your inconsistency of challenging Christian with your "child rape" scenario by explaining that your very own worldview has zero basis to complain about such evils other than saying we shouldn't treat children that way. I feel that you are ignoring my challenge, at this stage.

Joeseph

@mpaul73



***Are you denying that your naturalistic worldview reduces morality down to subjective personal preferences?***

Morality is like a pair of spectacles we all see through our own particular lenses.



***Let me try again because you are not addressing the issue***

Stop.lying ,I've addressed the issue several times you fled or made excuses.


***. If your concept of morality is subjective (personal preference) what is problem with someone choosing hate over love as their way of living their life?***

People can live the way they wish where did I say otherwise?

*** Is love objectively a better path than hate? If you think so give a reason why it is without being subjective.***

Subjectively it depends on the situation , Muslims love Allah and detest infidels there love of Allah had them flying planes into the twin towers right?

Your god wiped out the world's population and you call that a " loving god" right?

Are they " objectively " better paths as they are done in the name of " love"

What's love?



***And again I am trying to point out your inconsistency of challenging Christian with your "child rape" scenario by explaining that your very own worldview has zero basis to complain about such evils other than
 saying we shouldn't treat children that way. I feel that you are ignoring my challenge, at this stage.***

But there's zero inconsistencies in my view.

I told you 15 times my worldview has me treating others as I wish to be treated ,what about this is difficult for you?

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

@mpaul73



***Are you denying that your naturalistic worldview reduces morality down to subjective personal preferences?***

Morality is like a pair of spectacles we all see through our own particular lenses.



***Let me try again because you are not addressing the issue***

Stop.lying ,I've addressed the issue several times you fled or made excuses.


***. If your concept of morality is subjective (personal preference) what is problem with someone choosing hate over love as their way of living their life?***

People can live the way they wish where did I say otherwise?

*** Is love objectively a better path than hate? If you think so give a reason why it is without being subjective.***

Subjectively it depends on the situation , Muslims love Allah and detest infidels there love of Allah had them flying planes into the twin towers right?

Your god wiped out the world's population and you call that a " loving god" right?

Are they " objectively " better paths as they are done in the name of " love"

What's love?



***And again I am trying to point out your inconsistency of challenging Christian with your "child rape" scenario by explaining that your very own worldview has zero basis to complain about such evils other than
 saying we shouldn't treat children that way. I feel that you are ignoring my challenge, at this stage.***

But there's zero inconsistencies in my view.

I told you 15 times my worldview has me treating others as I wish to be treated ,what about this is difficult for you?

"Morality is like a pair of spectacles we all see through our own particular lenses."

Ok, so there is no way for child rape to be universally condemned according to you. Thanks for making this clear.

"People can live the way they wish where did I say otherwise?"

I agree but that isn't the issue. The question is: OUGHT THEY TO LIVE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO? If not why not?

"Subjectively it depends on the situation , Muslims love Allah and detest infidels there love of Allah had them flying planes into the twin towers right? Your god wiped out the world's population and you call that a " loving god" right? Are they " objectively " better paths as they are done in the name of " love""

Since you’ve stated that morality is completely subjective, you’re admitting that there’s no objective basis to say that love is better than hate. Bringing up terrorism and divine actions doesn’t address this. Without an objective foundation, any claim about morality is just personal preference. So, how do you justify any moral stance if it’s all subjective?

"I told you 15 times my worldview has me treating others as I wish to be treated ,what about this is difficult for you?"

What if someone doesn’t want to be treated the way you wish to be treated? Who decides which preference is right? In a completely subjective framework, how do you resolve conflicts between differing moral perspectives?

Joeseph

@mpaul73


Ok, so there is no way for child rape to be universally condemned according to you. Thanks for making this clear.


You're not listening again,  I said my sense of " morality " is informed by treating others how I wish to be treated. You keep trying to argue against arguments I'm not making.



I agree but that isn't the issue. The question is: OUGHT THEY TO LIVE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO? If not why not?

I don't get to dictate how others live , is this not fairly obvious? Also you cannot derive an ought from an is.

Since you’ve stated that morality is completely subjective,

I didnt say completely there are " moral"  certain decisions that have universal agreement more or less which one could deem are loosely objective in nature 

 you’re admitting that there’s no objective basis to say that love is better than hate.

Point me to the basis and let's test it?

 Bringing up terrorism and divine actions doesn’t address this

It does it shows the flaws in your position and your term terrorism clearly demonstrates your again appealing to subjective morality 

.Without an objective foundation, any claim about morality is just personal preference

So show us this objective foundation and let's test it?

 So, how do you justify any moral stance if it’s all subjective?

I've told you 17 times now how I addresses this your dishonesty is appaling . Also " justify " to who?

What if someone doesn’t want to be treated the way you wish to be treated?

If someone doesn't wanted to be treated kindly and with respect what do suggest I do instead, beat them up?

 Who decides which preference is right? 

You ask the most absurd questions do you live in a cave? Can you not observe daily events in your life to get an answer to this?

Are you even watching what is going on in your own country and who is deciding what's right ? Seriously buddy is that a serious question?

In a completely subjective framework, how do you resolve conflicts between differing moral perspectives?

Again look at the world around you and tell me are these conflicts ever resolved , one example is the Israel / Palestine conflict , I feel you have to be trolling to ask such questions.

mpaul73

@Joeseph

I understand your points about subjective morality and real-world conflicts. However, the heart of the issue is how we justify any moral stance without an objective standard? In a subjective framework, determining which moral perspective is right becomes arbitrary. Without an objective basis, like the nature of God in the Christian worldview, how do we resolve moral conflicts consistently and justly? This is the crux of my argument.

Joeseph

@mpaul73

I understand your points about subjective morality and real-world conflicts. However, the heart of the issue is how we justify any moral stance without an objective standard? In a subjective framework, determining which moral perspective is right becomes arbitrary.

What is the objective you're referring to do tell? Let's take an example what's the " objective standard " for the Israeli / Palestine conflict?

Also subjective morality is not Arbitrary religiosity morality certainly is though , if God says slaughtering children is " morally " good according to christians that is so.

Without an objective basis, like the nature of God in the Christian worldview, how do we resolve moral conflicts consistently and justly? This is the crux of my argument.

 

But you keep avoiding answering what are these "objective moral" dictates chistians ars reliant on? Reliance on a god creates moral conflicts and tell me the biblical justness for buying people as property?

mpaul73

"But you keep avoiding answering what are these "objective moral" dictates Christians are reliant on? Reliance on a god creates moral conflicts and tell me the biblical justness for buying people as property?"

That is not the issue at hand tho. Most all of us agree that there are moral dictates. The real question is why are there any moral dictates at all? Why do we believe it is good to treat people kindly and like Jesus taught (and you believe) live by the golden rule? I've answered this many times, but not liking a reason doesn't make it false. In simple terms, I want to hear your reason why in a chance, evolutionary, naturalistic universe, were our ancestors (and all life) originates back to pond scum do we have moral dictates and complaints such as child rape?

Factfinder

@mpaul73

I understand your points about subjective morality and real-world conflicts. However, the heart of the issue is how we justify any moral stance without an objective standard? In a subjective framework, determining which moral perspective is right becomes arbitrary. Without an objective basis, like the nature of God in the Christian worldview, how do we resolve moral conflicts consistently and justly? This is the crux of my argument.

We have no objective moral standard that can be asserted with tangible evidence. So logically as humanity evolved a moral consensus of consistency common moral dictates arose and has been adopted to guide the scruples of society. The Christian world view has produced no evidence it should be accepted and it's elf book provides plenty of evidence the main character in the collection of myths is evil, indifferent to human suffering. No amount of sub par philosophical pontificating is going to change these facts.

MayCaesar

@mpaul73

We have brains and make observations about the world, determining life strategies that work and those that do not. It does not take a lot of observing to see how destructive habitual lying can be to one's life and the lives of those he coexists with. Trust is a very valuable currency in any mutually beneficial social interaction, and lying depletes that currency. It stands to reason that liars are not going to be well regarded by most people - and shamed for their habit.

That lying was morally wrong is an idea going back many thousands of years, long before the Bible or Torah, or even any known monotheistic religion at all, existed. How did those people figure it out without the genius of one Israeli guy from 2,000 years ago? How do people figure it out today in cultures in which Christianity is virtually non-existent? Lying is seen as abhorrent in every culture, including such cultures as Japanese or Australian aboriginal, cultures that until the past couple of centuries had next to no interaction with any of the Christian-majority cultures.

That Christianity is somehow revolutionary and uniquely grounds morals is complete a-historical rubbish.

mpaul73

@Factfinder
"We have no objective moral standard that can be asserted with tangible evidence. So logically as humanity evolved a moral consensus of consistency common moral dictates arose and has been adopted to guide the scruples of society. The Christian world view has produced no evidence it should be accepted and it's elf book provides plenty of evidence the main character in the collection of myths is evil, indifferent to human suffering. No amount of sub par philosophical pontificating is going to change these facts."

If there’s no objective moral standard, why should we have any moral dictates at all? Why do humans care about right and wrong? The Christian worldview provides a reason for morality rooted in God’s nature. Evolving a consensus doesn’t explain the inherent human concern for morality. Without an objective basis, what justifies our discussions about morality, and why do humans care about concepts like right and wrong in the first place?

mpaul73

@MayCaesar

Your argument shows how people have figured out morality through practical observation, but it doesn’t address why these morals are objectively true. Just because different cultures have similar moral rules doesn’t mean those rules have a solid foundation. Christianity claims that God’s unchanging nature provides this foundation. Without an objective basis, saying lying is inherently wrong becomes just a matter of opinion rather than a universal truth. How do you justify any moral stance as objectively right or wrong without this foundation?

Joeseph

@mpaul73

That is not the issue at hand tho. Most all of us agree that there are moral dictates. 

But it is part of what we are talking about you claim that morality has an objective basis you refuse to provide evidence for this claim as in a list of objective moral dictates, your morality is arbitrary as its based on your gods whims , your god says slavery is just fine I take it you agree to be consistent with your views.

You also think gods non intervention in saving a child being raped is a morally perfect decision , you do not know what morality is it seems. 

The real question is why are there any moral dictates at all? Why do we believe it is good to treat people kindly and like Jesus taught (and you believe) live by the golden rule?

Because we are part of society where cooperation brings more benefits than opposition,  read a basic primer on morality please.

BTW the golden rule precedes Jesus by a long time Confuscious cited it long before Jesus 


No you didn't,  you keep talking about objective morality which is god given yet cannot provide these moral dictates that are set in stone ,  your morality is subjective as you ignore most of what your Christian ancestors took as law, can you not see this?

 want to hear your reason why in a chance, evolutionary, naturalistic universe, were our ancestors (and all life) originates back to pond scum do we have moral dictates and complaints such as child rape?

Read a  book on Evolution  it seems you just want to constantly fire off question after question and yet answer nothing.

You keep ignoring the answers you're getting and constantly asking the same questions non stop.

mpaul73

Joeseph said:

@mpaul73

That is not the issue at hand tho. Most all of us agree that there are moral dictates. 

But it is part of what we are talking about you claim that morality has an objective basis you refuse to provide evidence for this claim as in a list of objective moral dictates, your morality is arbitrary as its based on your gods whims , your god says slavery is just fine I take it you agree to be consistent with your views.

You also think gods non intervention in saving a child being raped is a morally perfect decision , you do not know what morality is it seems. 

The real question is why are there any moral dictates at all? Why do we believe it is good to treat people kindly and like Jesus taught (and you believe) live by the golden rule?

Because we are part of society where cooperation brings more benefits than opposition,  read a basic primer on morality please.

BTW the golden rule precedes Jesus by a long time Confuscious cited it long before Jesus 


No you didn't,  you keep talking about objective morality which is god given yet cannot provide these moral dictates that are set in stone ,  your morality is subjective as you ignore most of what your Christian ancestors took as law, can you not see this?

 want to hear your reason why in a chance, evolutionary, naturalistic universe, were our ancestors (and all life) originates back to pond scum do we have moral dictates and complaints such as child rape?

Read a  book on Evolution  it seems you just want to constantly fire off question after question and yet answer nothing.

You keep ignoring the answers you're getting and constantly asking the same questions non stop.

"But it is part of what we are talking about you claim that morality has an objective basis you refuse to provide evidence for this claim as in a list of objective moral dictates, your morality is arbitrary as its based on your gods whims , your god says slavery is just fine I take it you agree to be consistent with your views."

According to Jesus, it boils down to loving your neighbor as yourself. Do you need an explanation of what that looks like? If you do I can give it to you.

"You also think gods non intervention in saving a child being raped is a morally perfect decision , you do not know what morality is it seems."

well until you have a foundation for calling child abuse wrong, you really have no basis for questioning how God acts. Do you?

"Because we are part of society where cooperation brings more benefits than opposition,  read a basic primer on morality please.

"So morality is conventional, by majority vote? And who decides what is "beneficial"? Define beneficial. Hitler sincerely believed what he was doing was beneficial didn't he? If you believe he was wrong on what basis do you believe he was wrong?"

"BTW the golden rule precedes Jesus by a long time Confuscious cited it long before Jesus"

So? I never made the claim that Jesus invented the golden rule. He just stated what humanity has ALWAYS KNOWN. Becuase being created in the image of God we instinctively know that love is the correct path.

MayCaesar

mpaul73 said:

@MayCaesar

Your argument shows how people have figured out morality through practical observation, but it doesn’t address why these morals are objectively true. Just because different cultures have similar moral rules doesn’t mean those rules have a solid foundation. Christianity claims that God’s unchanging nature provides this foundation. Without an objective basis, saying lying is inherently wrong becomes just a matter of opinion rather than a universal truth. How do you justify any moral stance as objectively right or wrong without this foundation?

That is the crux of the issue though: they are not objectively true. But that does not imply that they are completely arbitrary. I have to make this point often: "subjective" does not imply "arbitrary". That I prefer pears to apples is subjective - but there are biological reasons for my preference, and I cannot just suddenly decide, "Hey, starting today, I prefer apples to pears". And I certainly will prefer pears to dirt, and someone who prefers dirt to pears must have some kind of mental condition.

With lying, there are edge cases that are highly subjective. Is it okay to lie to an armed robber asking where your child is hiding? Most people would say that lying in this case is justified, but there would also be hardcore moralists who would say that even here lying is unacceptable. Different moral systems clash here.

But there is no sensible moral system that does not have any problem with lying. It is because lying has objective effects that turn out to be very destructive. It does not imply that lying is "objectively wrong", but it does suggest that discouraging lying is natural human response, independent of any external considerations.

You figure out what is right or wrong not by reading ancient books; nor do you do that by just randomly deciding which it is. You instead observe the objective effects lying has in the world, and that drives evolution of your moral values. You can try lying in a relationship with someone and seeing where it leads; then you can try being honest in a relationship with someone and seeing where that leads. You can have other people be honest with you, and lie to you, and compare the effects. This is how this process works, not very different from how any other thinking process works.

Factfinder

@mpaul73

If there’s no objective moral standard, why should we have any moral dictates at all? Why do humans care about right and wrong? The Christian worldview provides a reason for morality rooted in God’s nature. Evolving a consensus doesn’t explain the inherent human concern for morality. Without an objective basis, what justifies our discussions about morality, and why do humans care about concepts like right and wrong in the first place?

If you choose not to don't. Try not to let it get you into trouble though. That'd be my friendly advice. Why do you aske endless pointless questions? Does it matter? Santa Clause provides equally a reason for morality but most people find it wiser to contemplate morals in reality as opposed to childhood fantasy. Appeals to ignorance and saying "god did it" doesn't explain the existence of the human concept of morality either. The fact is we try to care about justice and injustice as human intellect finds the concept appealing. Inserting one of hundreds of imagined gods adds no intrinsic value the the philosophical question, "why" in any tangible way.