Morality exists without your God.

[Formaldehyde]

Off topic, but you have some serious misunderstandings about the Christian faith.
You are obviously referring to some of the 'thorny' Old Testament passages. However, trying to claim that the OT was intended as a to-do list is very inaccurate and your contradictions are actually resolved in the Bible. You are welcome to PM me if you are interested
There are many volumes of books written on this subject, and if it were as obviously unresolved as you are claiming, people who otherwise believe they are following a life defined by love wouldn't hold to this particular worldview.

Welcome to OT. I've been saying that for a year now.

So exactly when do passages from the OT pertain, and when have they not been "abrogated" by the clearly different and quite pacifist religious principles portrayed by the NT?

Why don't you typically speak out when fundamentalists and evangelists cite the OT as the basis for their beliefs, especially when there are so many contrary passages in the NT?

Could you possibly start a thread about this if you don't wish to discuss it here?

 

[El_Machinae]

The reason I brought up my hypothetical scenario where there are 2 people in the universe and they are the only beings in it, with polar opposite ideas on what is a good moral code, is this;

It was suggested to me that one persons opinion on morality would ultimately be better. However, obviously each person would see their own belief, and the outworkings that coincided with it, as better.

Why does one person get to think they may impose their own morality on anyone else if they believe it is only their opinion?
Similarly, if you believe there is no higher being in the universe, and everything is ultimately just an opinion, on what basis may you hold someone else to your standards of right and wrong?

Is it anything more than, "views in contrast to mine get in the way of what makes me (or group X) happy?"

Well, keep in mind that you're describing a two-person universe. In such a party, there's no third-party omniscient observer. That said, we know that despite the fact that the person thought they liked the outcome of their choices, there will still (objectively) better or worse choices to be made.


As an aside, the New Testament is fundamentally tainted by the fact that the people are encouraged to love the god of the Old (and New) Testament. If Jesus had told the people to reject the old evil god, then he'd have a better case. But he didn't. He just insisted that we warp morality to love such an entity.

 

[AdamGM]

So morality exists with God so long as you edit out the questionable parts of his message?

What message? I never specified any specific worldview.

I did address your scenario, but you ignored me. How is your scenario different when those two people claim opposing moralities supported by what they consider divine mandate?

And I also answered your second question. Morality isn't formed by someone's opinion, except for the arbitrary divine flavour, but it evolved from social interaction.

It is different for this reason; if we have two people who each believe they are the only two people in the universe, neither believe that something is "really right", it's just the idea that admittedly suits them.
The starting point changes dramatically if we admit that right and wrong are real beyond what I want (without addressing what it could be).

You seem to be talking about the idea of morality and some course of evolution it may have taken. That provides no evidence for either view - that it was purely natural or may have had divine influence.

 

[AdamGM]

So exactly when do passages from the OT pertain, and when have they not been "abrogated" by the clearly different and quite pacifist religious principles portrayed by the NT?

Why don't you typically speak out when fundamentalists and evangelists cite the OT as the basis for their beliefs, especially when there are so many contrary passages in the NT?

Could you possibly start a thread about this if you don't wish to discuss it here?

I'd be more than willing.
Would you read a book or two if I suggested them to you? Everyone in this forum seems to claim to be welcome to learning about new ideas.
There are many Ivy league authors who vary in backgrounds from theology to math who write on the topic much better than I can.

 

[AdamGM]

Well, keep in mind that you're describing a two-person universe. In such a party, there's no third-party omniscient observer. That said, we know that despite the fact that the person thought they liked the outcome of their choices, there will still (objectively) better or worse choices to be made.

Where does the objective morality come from? Basic ideas like health and happiness aren't universal to every moral code.

As an aside, the New Testament is fundamentally tainted by the fact that the people are encouraged to love the god of the Old (and New) Testament. If Jesus had told the people to reject the old evil god, then he'd have a better case. But he didn't. He just insisted that we warp morality to love such an entity.

This is a very common misunderstanding, and I would be welcome to addressing it elsewhere. See my other reply.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is different for this reason; if we have two people who each believe they are the only two people in the universe, neither believe that something is "really right", it's just the idea that admittedly suits them.
The starting point changes dramatically if we admit that right and wrong are real beyond what I want (without addressing what it could be).

You seem to be talking about the idea of morality and some course of evolution it may have taken. That provides no evidence for either view - that it was purely natural or may have had divine influence.

This doesn't refute my point that morality which is claimed as divine is more subjective, since it's claim doesn't have any more justification for it than it's divinity, than an idea that evolved over time with the success of society as it's driving factor.

 

[AdamGM]

with the success of society as it's driving factor.

This would be a faith statement, presupposing the thing that the thread is arguing against - that it evolved without a god.

 

[Cutlass]

It's more working out what his message is in the first place - which isn't as simple as 'the Bible says it, let's do that'.

Ah, but then have you really considered the size of the can of worms that opens? The Bible is not so explicitly clear that a number of readers can come to the same conclusions. Even with honest attempts to approach it objectively, the subjective interpretations have to color the perceptions. And so you have, at the least, schism. And then you have the people who convince themselves that "God must have meant this, and therefor that is the one and only truth that all must live by". So when even people with the best of intentions and intellectual honestly can come to different conclusions, what is in store for us when many people who are not so honest are the ones who come to influence and power?

 

[Save_Ferris]

So exactly when do passages from the OT pertain, and when have they not been "abrogated" by the clearly different and quite pacifist religious principles portrayed by the NT?

Why don't you typically speak out when fundamentalists and evangelists cite the OT as the basis for their beliefs, especially when there are so many contrary passages in the NT?

Could you possibly start a thread about this if you don't wish to discuss it here?

It doesn't matter which parts of the OT have been abrogated, I use the NT. I am too against fundamentalists and evangelists using parts of the OT against people. What I am here to do is say what needs to be said. Given that there is substantial criticism to such posts from the secular side here, a redundant post would be unnecessary.

 

[AdamGM]

Ah, but then have you really considered the size of the can of worms that opens? The Bible is not so explicitly clear that a number of readers can come to the same conclusions. Even with honest attempts to approach it objectively, the subjective interpretations have to color the perceptions. And so you have, at the least, schism. And then you have the people who convince themselves that "God must have meant this, and therefor that is the one and only truth that all must live by". So when even people with the best of intentions and intellectual honestly can come to different conclusions, what is in store for us when many people who are not so honest are the ones who come to influence and power?

Wow, people sure are bent on taking on Christianity in this thread eh? lol.

This isn't exclusive to any religion or worldview. How would an atheist demand that another atheist act in a certain way if it was deemed unacceptable? I have atheistic friends who have substantial issues with the ideas of other atheists.

 

[JollyRoger]

What message?

His moral guidance as expressed in the Bible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It doesn't matter which parts of the OT have been abrogated, I use the NT. I am too against fundamentalists and evangelists using parts of the OT against people. What I am here to do is say what needs to be said. Given that there is substantial criticism to such posts from the secular side here, a redundant post would be unnecessary.

Not at all. Many evangelists and fundamentalists in this forum typically peremptorily dismiss anything that an agnostic or atheist posts about the Bible. Some of them even claim we "hate" all Christians merely because we disagree with their interpretations.

I have been to numerous church services in many different sects. And I have yet to hear a minister use any passages from the OT in any sermons.

 

[Cutlass]

Wow, people sure are bent on taking on Christianity in this thread eh? lol.

This isn't exclusive to any religion or worldview. How would an atheist demand that another atheist act in a certain way if it was deemed unacceptable? I have atheistic friends who have substantial issues with the ideas of other atheists.

But at least when atheists have a conflict over what is the right and what is the wrong way to live, they don't say "God tells me I am right and you are wrong so do it the way I say or burn in Hell for all eternity!!!"

That threat of eternal damnation and that moral authority gained from invoking the favor of God is extremely powerful in bullying people into doing what they are told to do rather than finding their own moral compass.

 

[Formaldehyde]

To be fair, most Christian churches don't preach hell fire and damnation. My father once told a minister that if he ever did it again that we would never attend his church. The minister said he couldn't make that promise so we never went back.

 

[El_Machinae]

Where does the objective morality come from? Basic ideas like health and happiness aren't universal to every moral code.

We might be missing a step.

What's the point of morality? Once you define the point, then we can see whether it can objectively exist.

To my best estimation, moral living is a way of living (with others) such that the interactions are game-winning. Everyone does well if a good morality is followed. Fewer do well if a poor morality is followed.

The worst morality, of course, is that no one does well - if all interactions compound suffering.

 

[Core Imposter]

I might read this thread.

 

[AdamGM]

But at least when atheists have a conflict over what is the right and what is the wrong way to live, they don't say "God tells me I am right and you are wrong so do it the way I say or burn in Hell for all eternity!!!"

That threat of eternal damnation and that moral authority gained from invoking the favor of God is extremely powerful in bullying people into doing what they are told to do rather than finding their own moral compass.

How is that different to an atheist though? If someone has a personal moral compass that is in stark contrast to yours... than what?

 

[AdamGM]

We might be missing a step.

What's the point of morality? Once you define the point, then we can see whether it can objectively exist.

To my best estimation, moral living is a way of living (with others) such that the interactions are game-winning. Everyone does well if a good morality is followed. Fewer do well if a poor morality is followed.

The worst morality, of course, is that no one does well - if all interactions compound suffering.

Your continued use of the word objective is confusing me. If each person has their own moral code then each is purely subjective.

This is the reason I chose a simplified example of just two people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, everyone's code is subjective. Your opinion of circles is also subjective. But we have an objective definition of a circle, things are objectively 'more' or 'less' circle-like, despite anyone's subjective opinion.

 

[AdamGM]

Yes, everyone's code is subjective. Your opinion of circles is also subjective. But we have an objective definition of a circle, things are objectively 'more' or 'less' circle-like, despite anyone's subjective opinion.

Edited: original question was unfair.
Where do you believe objective morality came from? Why are the things that you defined as good, good?