Atheist Morality

[Right Divider]

But still, WE have to decide that this is the case, and to do accordingly, or that it is not the case, and to do according to some other ethical methodology. Ultimately, WE decide what we think is God's will for us, or what other ethical imperative we believe is right for us to live by. And that is why we are being held responsible for our choices.

There is an absolute standard regardless of how any of us "interpret" it. That is how God is able to judge us justly.

 

[marke]

But still, WE have to decide that this is the case, and to do accordingly, or that it is not the case, and to do according to some other ethical methodology. Ultimately, WE decide what we think is God's will for us, or what other ethical imperative we believe is right for us to live by. And that is why we are being held responsible for our choices.

True. Every man must be persuaded in his own mind what the will of God is for His life and every man will one day face God to give an account of what he did on earth whether good or evil as God sees it.

 

[PureX]

There is an absolute standard regardless of how any of us "interpret" it.

Or, so you have chosen to believe.

 

[PureX]

True. Every man must be persuaded in his own mind what the will of God is for His life and every man will one day face God to give an account of what he did on earth whether good or evil as God sees it.

I think it would be unfair to pass such judgment on us if we did not make that choice for ourselves. Which is why the truth cannot be forced upon us. It's up to us to try and seek it out, and then choose to embody it.

 

[Right Divider]

Or, so you have chosen to believe.

Feel free to give some reason to think otherwise.

 

[PureX]

Feel free to give some reason to think otherwise.

You are free to think/believe as you wish, as are we all. That was my point.

 

[Right Divider]

You are free to think/believe as you wish, as are we all. That was my point.

So you don't think that God has an absolute standard that we should all strive for?

 

[Skeeter]

Straw man? Okay, then if the is no god, who decided what is right and wrong?

A computer could, a deity could if they existed, and humans can. The real question is not who but HOW! A rational calculus can be applied to evaluate enhanced well-being and reduced misery given certain practices.

 

[Skeeter]

So you don't think that God has an absolute standard that we should all strive for?

There is an absolute moral right and wrong that we all strive for. We can not know with certainty ahead of time how close our decisions were to it. Following blanket directives rather than thinking it through will usually leave you at greater distance from the ideal.

 

[Skeeter]

Said the man who asked a bunch of questions without answering any.

Do you really want to look objectively at the longer term interaction between us on this issue? You will fall short.

Or because I hope you'll think through your position better? Guess that's too much to ask for.

An honest give and take is better than your pejorative attempt at Socratic questioning.

Yes. "Christians" are little Christs. There are some folks that claim Christ without being his, which could skew your perception of us, and perhaps of him, but it's your responsibility to find the truth by seeking it diligently.

This is the circular dance some Christians dance disclaiming their siblings as Christians to avoid overall data.

At least Christians (most of them) believe in a standard of right and wrong that is 1. Infallible, and 2. Established by someone greater than any creature (including humans) and 3. Accessible to us.

Believing it does not make it true.

Besides the answer already provided (the resurrection of Christ), we also claim to know the one who made everything, including you and me. And He claims authority over His creation, to give and revoke laws as necessary.

A claim without adequate proof. Third hand accounts of miracles are not enough for me. And, even if the claims were true, it does not necessarily follow that the entirety of the doctrine is true.

 

[PureX]

So you don't think that God has an absolute standard that we should all strive for?

I don't presume to know what God "has". Nor can I make any claims regarding absolutes.

 

[marke]

I think it would be unfair to pass such judgment on us if we did not make that choice for ourselves. Which is why the truth cannot be forced upon us. It's up to us to try and seek it out, and then choose to embody it.

God is not interested whether sinners think sin is right or not. He makes the rules and judges those who foolishly break them.

 

[Idolater]

A computer could, a deity could if they existed, and humans can. The real question is not who but HOW! A rational calculus can be applied to evaluate enhanced well-being and reduced misery given certain practices.

Plain old utilitarianism. Let's say the computer calculates that if we kill one man, call him Bob, that everybody else will prosper beyond measure and all pain and suffering would cease. Bob's dead meat in your world, but fortunately and thank the Lord above that's not the world that America founded, the world based on a morality that is based on "inbuilt" (@Arthur Brain ) absolute moral rights. Bob gets to live in our world, no matter what your computer says.

Typical utilitarian. Note here, that I'm pointing out the absurdities necessarily implied by utilitarian propositions, but also I'm demonstrating that if you want to be a better utilitarian, then you'd always 'check your work' against the theory of human rights (the moral theory of the American framers, not including Jefferson) to make sure your "rational calculus" leads you astray inadvertently.

So cut out the middle man. Just believe in universal human rights.

There is an absolute moral right and wrong that we all strive for.

The American framers agree with you.

We can not know with certainty ahead of time how close our decisions were to it. Following blanket directives rather than thinking it through will usually leave you at greater distance from the ideal.

Or, the American framers are simply correct. How does it go? " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (even kings), that they are endowed by their Creator ("inbuilt") with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (right against murder), Liberty (rights against slavery, against kidnapping, against invasion of our privacy, etc.) and the pursuit of Happiness (aka the right to ethical independence, or the right against invasion of our ethics)."

 

[PureX]

God is not interested whether sinners think sin is right or not. He makes the rules and judges those who foolishly break them.

I disagree. I think it's all about the spirit within us that drives us to act out selfishly, and destructively (sinfully).

 

[Right Divider]

There is an absolute moral right and wrong that we all strive for. We can not know with certainty ahead of time how close our decisions were to it.

Why not?

Following blanket directives rather than thinking it through will usually leave you at greater distance from the ideal.

Why?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because the application of simplistic notions leads to immoral results in a significant minority of situations.

No it doesn't.

That's only because of circular reasoning. You define murder as bad killing and self-defense that results in death as good killing and not murder.

I'm not the one who defined it as such. That would be God.

This is a false dichotomy. Many translations of the commandments say thou shall not kill.

They are incorrect.

The Hebrew word used (which the English versions are translated (however poorly) from), means to murder. There is a different word for "kill" that is NOT used in "Do not murder."

It is better for humans to consider all killing of other humans as wrong

False.

Putting murderers to death is a good thing.

but to varying degrees depending on the circumstances lest human life be marginalized,

When you respect God's given rules, human beings are treated like human beings.

property be considered more valuable than human life, and homicide be viewed biasedly whereby killing an other is okay, but killing those in your circle is wrong.

The principles taught in the Bible are a better standard to use than your opinions.

If a drug addicted woman snatches a jewelry clerk's baby,

Then the woman should be put to death for kidnapping.

and says just bring me that necklace worth $1000,

The jewelry clerk should refuse to comply.

she must refuse because she does not own the necklace?

That, and because criminals don't have the right to make such demands.

And, if she does, her hands should be removed?

Why would you think that?

If she reported the incident as soon as reasonably possible after getting her baby back

Even better would be to get her baby back without giving the crazy lady the necklace.

should would not be convicted of theft by US law

If she assisted the criminal, then she's just as guilty as the criminal. Hence why she should refuse to comply with the demands of the criminal.

--but God would judge her??

Only if she assisted the criminal.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

This is an example where simple absolute commands fails miserably.

It doesn't fail.

A dead baby and a saved necklace is the just result?

Sorry, when did this baby die in your scenario?

Mistaken self-defense is a tragedy and not a just result. If someone comes into your apartment uninvited pushing through a cheap lock and you shoot him for fear he might hurt you, you think that is a just result even if he just entered the wrong apartment mistaking the floors?

If it was in the dark and you couldn't see him, yes, it is justified.

It is NOT justified in a well lit environment.

And you don't give people as much of an opportunity if they break your door down to get into your house.

It was fine that you shot and asked questions later?

Supra.

You have no responsibility to try to assess the situation and/or potentially use less than lethal force?

Supra.

Is it bloodlust and machismo or overvalue of property (trespass violation of home) that is being served here?

It's protection of one's right to life, protection of loved ones, and protection of property (which is an extension of one's right to life).

If someone has broken into my home, then my life (including my family and my possessions) takes priority over the criminal's.

Any moral system that cannot value human well being over property is flawed.

Agreed. The system proposed by the Bible shows proper respect to everything.

Easy to say harder to do. Dealing with the court system is arduous and time consuming.

In an ideal legal system, it wouldn't be. I'm glad you recognize that our current system is severely flawed, at least in that respect.

Your views on the lack of value you place on human life are showing (aside from a fetus.)

Criminals who commit capital crimes forfeit their right to life the moment they commit a capital crime.

Adultery is no longer a crime in the United States.

It is, but the law isn't enforced, as far as I'm aware.

Such crimes butt up against basic freedoms and constitutional rights.

Adultery does not butt up against any basic freedom. Constitutional rights are overrated.

Adultery is immoral because it involves deception.

It's immoral because it's a violation of God's command for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife.

Social consequences like divorce and shunning are appropriate.

Divorce should not be allowed except in cases of sexual immorality.

Killing people to threaten other people not to do the crime is a very extreme measure.

It's called a deterrent. And it is a very effective deterrent.

Many instances of infidelity result from poor impulse control.

Indeed. Which is largely caused by poor enforcement of the law.

Most marriages can survive an infidelity. No marriage survives when the state murders one of its members.

It's not murder to put a capital criminal to death.

Yes murders.

Stamping your foot and demanding that it is so, does not make it so.

It's not murder to put a convicted capital criminal to death.

Killing someone for a crime of lower transgression is MURDER.

Adultery is and should be a capital crime. It is not a "lower transgression."

And no, putting adulterers to death is not murder.

Killing someone for infidelity hurts the victim more than the infidelity, Duh!

No, it doesn't.

Then how does infidelity destroy the marriage if it does not result in divorce.

Have you never been in a relationship where the other person broke a promise?

The kids need not ever know of the infidelity, and many families survive and thrive despite an infidelity.

Better to not even allow it.

The family is not destroyed although a setback is possible.

Supra.

You are being a bit of a drama queen here.

Insulting me doesn't address my arguments.

The children are responsible for their own crimes.

Indeed.

An adult may contribute to the delinquency of a child, and should be punished.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

There are many punishments short of death that are more appropriate.

There are no just punishments aside from restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty.

Killing off people is not the only way to show you care, pal.

Indeed.

The first million is restitution damages,

Wrong.

The first million is restoring what was stolen.

the second would be punitive damages,

Wrong.

The second million is the actual punishment.

but that kind of award would not be made.

Not in our current just-a-system, no.

Punitive damages are based on how much is needed to punish the particular defendant.

In our current just-a-system, sure.

But in a true justice system, the rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

A big corporation might have to pay a lot, but an individual like the one described would only be a given an amount he could reasonably pay over time.

In our current system, that might be the case. But it's not just.

Here's what just punishments would be for various restitution crimes:
- Recovered goods: Pay two times.
- Stolen goods sold: Pay four times
- Destroyed goods: Pay four times
- Irreplaceable goods: Pay five times
- Sentimental goods: Pay five times
- Insignificant goods: Pay seven times
- Surrendered goods: Pay 120%
- Accidental destruction: Pay half
- Common negligence: Even restitution
- Destroy property: Even restitution
- Temporary injury: Medical and salary

Let pretend some of the million he stole was unrecoverable for the example.

Then he should pay FOUR TIMES the amount.

This deters thieves from stealing then getting rid of them quickly.

Garnishing wages seems more appropriate, doesn't it?

It will take longer, and isn't much of a punishment.

The thirteenth amendment of the Constitution is essential for a society that supports individual freedoms.

The 13th Amendment reads:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

A time-limited transgression of theft does not warrant giving a private citizen such power over someone else.

It's not a private citizen being given the power.

Much strife and more conflict arises from slavery.

Not when it's used as punishment for a crime, which is a just use.

Courts do not even grant injunctions to work either because it is so impractical.

It's impractical in our current system. This does not mean that using such a punishment will not work.

People resist and do not do a good job and they end up back in court.

If that happened in a just system, they would be flogged in contempt of court.

Imprisonment by the state with a work detail works better in some cases.

For someone who harps on and on about the value of human life, your views don't treat humans like humans, but like animals.

Putting people in cages is not humane, nor is it just, nor can such a punishment be served swiftly.

Slavery involves a massive usurping of freedom

Not when it's used as a punishment for a crime, because the criminal forfeited his freedom when he committed the crime.

and theft of all the fruits of labor.

Restitution is not theft.

Less severe and more easily enforced options are available.

None of which are just.

Of course it does.

A giant stretch.

It's not.

Not a global flood and not connected to commandments.

The point is that there IS a flood myth, regardless of how distorted it has become from the original events.

The account by Matthew following the execution of Christ describes others rising out of their tombs and returning to the city. This is you book, You should know this a lot better than me.

I'm sorry, what was your point with this again?

Okay. I slipped in something from the Koran. Do you see how Islam upped you one in the reward after death inducements?

You complain about women and children being treated as property, and then you praise Islam for treating virgin women as rewards?

Hypocrite much.

A computer could,

A computer doesn't even know what it is, let alone the difference between right and wrong. And a computer is programmed by a human.

and humans can.

Humans can claim to know right from wrong, and can even claim that their standard is correct, but they have no external reference to know whether they are correct, and therefore should not be relied upon.

a deity could if they existed,

Not just any "deity." Only the God of the Bible, because He is triune.

The real question is not who but HOW! A rational calculus can be applied to evaluate enhanced well-being and reduced misery given certain practices.

There is no calculation that can be done to determine what is right and wrong, because they are not numerical values.

There is an absolute moral right and wrong that we all strive for.

There is, but it's not determined by man.

We can not know with certainty ahead of time how close our decisions were to it.

We can.

Following blanket directives rather than thinking it through will usually leave you at greater distance from the ideal.

You can never reach the ideal without God.

 

[Derf]

Do you really want to look objectively at the longer term interaction between us on this issue? You will fall short.

An honest give and take is better than your pejorative attempt at Socratic questioning.

And you get to define "honest"?

This is the circular dance some Christians dance disclaiming their siblings as Christians to avoid overall data.

So you're willing to accept everything every atheist has ever said about morality?

Believing it does not make it true.

Disbelieving doesn't make it false, either.

A claim without adequate proof. Third hand accounts of miracles are not enough for me. And, even if the claims were true, it does not necessarily follow that the entirety of the doctrine is true.

Second hand would be ok? With multiple witnesses?

 

[Skeeter]

And you get to define "honest"?

In an honest discussion, we agree on foundational terms together.

So you're willing to accept everything every atheist has ever said about morality?

No, but I am willing to accept that people who call themselves atheists are atheists, and the people calling themselves Christians are Christians.

Disbelieving doesn't make it false, either.

I never made that claim while you claimed Christians have an upper hand because they believe it.

Second hand would be ok? With multiple witnesses?

Extraordinary claims need more solid evidence because plausibility is low. That Jesus was a historical individual is possible. The odds are against even that. There is 1/3 chance he ever even existed. The miraculous claims are not supported by much of anything.

 

[Right Divider]

That Jesus was a historical individual is possible. The odds are against even that. There is 1/3 chance he ever even existed.

That comment is retarded.

 

[Skeeter]

That comment is retarded.

The reason that we doubt Jesus was an historical person has to do with the fact that the Christians appear to have originally believed he lived in the heavens and not on earth, and people received messages in dreams and visions. They later revised their thinking and placed him on earth actually interacting with people. Local savior Gods were a trend in other areas at the time that caught on. Thus, a local savior God was adapted within existing traditions because of its compelling nature not because of its veracity.