Hello again everyone.

So I think it's about time the issue of morality be properly addressed.

One recurring statement I see theists make, is that without the existence of a God, then morality, or better still, the definitions of right and wrong would be subjective, or a mere matter of opinion.

It is believed that somehow, the existence of a God, would make the issue of morality more straightforward. I beg to differ.

Whether or not we assume a God exists, we still run into a number of problems.

I'm going to take some examples given to me by theists here, as well as some examples of my own, to show why the existence of a God doesn't really answer the questions of morality

1) Human morality vs God's morality

It is commonly said, that if a God exists, then it would be the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore, we can only be good by aligning ourselves with its definition of good, and any deviation from that, would be evil.

For this position to make sense, anything, and I mean, ANYTHING, can be considered good, as long as a God says so. And even if we humans see something as subjectively good, that thing would not be objectively good except it is in line with what a God sets as good.

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad. But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

But here's the question. Are the bacteria wrong for not wanting to die? If I murder millions of them, are they somehow wrong for seeing my actions as bad?

Now let's bring God into this scenario.

If a God decides that it is moral and good to boil all first babies in hot oil till they die, and humans consider that bad, are they wrong for doing so?

Even if a God, who is the arbiter of good and bad exists, on what basis are we to say that it's definition of good and bad have to be the one we adhere to? If I choose not to boil my child in oil, that will be seen as bad as per the God's standard. But am I really wrong for not wanting to do so?

Why exactly do we need to adhere to this God's definition of right and wrong?

2) The existence of objective moral laws

Objective morality is something theists seem to believe in, which is fine.

However, the issue I have with theists here, is their inability to prove that the objective moral values, if they exist, are indeed coming from their specific God, and not another one. That somehow, the God who they serve, is indeed the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore the source of objective moral values.

For example, a Muslim can say it is wrong to eat pork, while a Christian can say it is right to do so. (please note: This is an example to prove a point, and should not be taken as an accurate representation of either faith).

Both of them believe in a God, who happens to be the the source of objective moral values. For the Christian, eating pork is objectively Ok, while to the muslim, it is objectively wrong. However, everyone knows that isn't how the word "objective" works.

At the end of the day, they are both subjective. Subjective in the sense that the definitions of right and wrong have shifted from personal opinion among different humans, to personal opinion among different gods.

Until the theist can prove that whatever God they serve is indeed the source of objective morality, their claims to any sort of objective moral truth is nonetheless subjective.

The laws given by the god of the bible, quran, vedas or any other religious text CANNOT be taken as objective, until the believer of the respective faith can show that their specific God, as described in their book, is indeed the creator of the universe, and hence, the source of objective moral laws.

Of course, this doesn't in any way mean we need to adhere to them, as explained in my earlier post, but it does get us a step closer to something.

There are more things I'd have loved to touch on, but I think I'll stop here for now.

As always, contributions and rebuttals are welcomed from people of all faiths, and lack thereof.

Mr. Endtimer, I think this would be a great place to continue our previous discussions on morality

Wilgrea7:
Hello again everyone.

So I think it's about time the issue of morality be properly addressed.

One recurring statement I see theists make, is that without the existence of a God, then morality, or better still, the definitions of right and wrong would be subjective, or a mere matter of opinion.

It is believed that somehow, the existence of a God, would make the issue of morality more straightforward. I beg to differ.

Whether or not we assume a God exists, we still run into a number of problems.

I'm going to take some examples given to me by theists here, as well as some examples of my own, to show why the existence of a God doesn't really answer the questions of morality

Take or leave it!

Where there is a Law (Moral) there is always A Law Maker!

No Law can make itself neither is it capable of making itself. That is what God The Mighty LawMaker and Creator of this world has already Done!

Dtruthspeaker:


Take or leave it!

Where there is a Law (Moral) there is always A Law Maker!

No Law can make itself neither is it capable of making itself. That is what God The Mighty LawMaker and Creator of this world has already Done!

That's not the purpose of this thread Mr Man. This is not about whether or not a God exists. Read again

Wilgrea7:


That's not the purpose of this thread Mr Man. This is not about whether or not a God exists. Read again

Sorry Youngman, they are inexplicably intertwined.

You can not talk about Law without t Course and Re-Course, to The Law Giver.

Wilgrea7:
1)

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad.

But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

I believe this bold has cleared it up. For, for a law to be The Law, it must trump, surpass crush and prevail over and above all other things.

And since you are the custodian of what is good and evil, it is subjective to you, the one who prevails.

It's as simple as that!

Dtruthspeaker:


I believe this bold has cleared it up. For, for a law to be The Law, it must trump, surpass crush and prevail over and above all other things.

And since you are the custodian of what is good and evil, it is subjective to you, the one who prevails.

It's as simple as that!

If you're going to address my arguments, address all of it.

You dodged the question at the end..

Are the bacteria bad for not wanting to die? If a God says it's good to boil children in oil, am i wrong for refusing to do so? And if yes, then why exactly do i need to adhere to this God's standard of good and evil

If something I would consider evil, such as boiling children to death is considered good by this God, am i under any obligation to subject myself to his “good"?

Dtruthspeaker:


Sorry Youngman, they are inexplicably intertwined.

You can not talk about Law without t Course and Re-Course, to The Law Giver.

Bruv... Stop deviating from the topic. If i were the one, you'd be screaming change of post like a referee.

This isn't about whether or not a God exists

The existence of food doesn't solve the problem of hunger, some may choose not to eat and die of hunger.

MaxInDHouse:
The existence of food doesn't solve the problem of hunger, some may choose not to eat and die of hunger.

If you're going to use an analogy... At least try to use that that makes sense, or relates to the topic being discussed

There is no moral dilemma. Morality is founded on the objective or goal of human welfare. That is the goal of every moral code, or should I say that is “objective morality”.

These moral codes have evolved over time as humans analyze and criticized them. Once you get rid of the god nonsense, it’s plain to see that morality evolved from the self interest of every human to protect life and property. The need for protection and cohesion also led to the moral codes applicable to groups.
When people’s intellect develop enough and those moral codes are truly beneficial , the code expand to include other groups, animals, and nature as a whole.

The whole concept of “god” guided morality was and is useful for the authorities who need to make people compliant.
The infamous saying of judaism, “the lord said”, is an example of god been used has a means for control.
Seriously, this “god” directed morality can be viewed as the farce that it is when you consider the abhorrent actions that “god” considers moral.

Stone someone to death. That’s moral according to “god”.
Rape and pillage. They deserve it according to “god”.

Morality is judged by the injury it prevents or the injury it causes to a person or people. Other than certain unscrupulous religious people, who else thinks stoning people is morally right?

Wilgrea7:


Bruv... Stop deviating from the topic. If i were the one, you'd be screaming change of post like a referee.

This isn't about whether or not a God exists

Your header and your words clearly says it is, so I have not deviated.

Wilgrea7:

If you're going to address my arguments, address all of it.
You dodged the question at the end.

I did not bother with all the other questions because when you take the object, the perimeter and area and shadow will follow.

Wilgrea7:

Are the bacteria bad for not wanting to die?

You have a toilet which you keep washed, so you have the True Answer to this one.

Wilgrea7:

If a God says it's good to boil children in oil, am i wrong for refusing to do so? And if yes, then why exactly do i need to adhere to this God's standard of good and evil.

If something I would consider evil, such as boiling children to death is considered good by this God, am i under any obligation to subject myself to his “good"?

You have a right to (adhere) obey or disobey, exactly as your boss telling you come to work on Sunday.

Secondly, do take note that God also told you (creation) to boil corn (another and rice (another creation) and not one of you have complained about it.

So, you can also choose to not subject yourself to His commandments of eating other creations and refuse cleaning your toilet, whatever happens is yours to carry.

this is great Wilgrea7. I wonder how you cope with this guy you keep debating though. I tend to skip his posts on threads. The FSM is your strength

hopefulLandlord:
this is great Wilgrea7. I wonder how you cope with this guy you keep debating though. I tend to skip his posts on threads. The FSM is your strength

Because I burst your the lying world you create around yourself so as to cope with your pain filled real-eye-ity.

KnownUnknown:
There is no moral dilemma. Morality is founded on the objective or goal of human welfare...

What is the objective goal of human welfare?

Wilgrea7:

If you're going to use an analogy... At least try to use that that makes sense, or relates to the topic being discussed

It won't make sense to you nah, no be atheist you be?

The Bible explicitly shows that God doesn't force Himself on anyone as long as you're off His program so if you don't feel like eating the availability of food can't save you from dying.

Talking about morality it's when we agree on the unadulterated word of God that we can achieve morality in a perfect sense, but where most disagree on the same line of thought {John 17:22 compare to 1Corinthians 1:10} and each person just feel like setting his or her own standard {Luke 11:23} then God's say on morality can only yield positive results in the gathering of those practically applying the counsel found in God's word! Matthew 7:16-18

Wilgrea7:
2) ...how the word "objective" works.

I don't think you know what objective standard is else you would not have made this post, but you act as if you do, so, What is an objective standard? Give examples for clarity

Dtruthspeaker:


I did not bother with all the other questions because when you take the object, the perimeter and area and shadow will follow.

No offense, but that's a really stupid excuse for dodging a valid question.

You have a toilet which you keep washed, so you have the True Answer to this one.

Still haven't answered the question. It's a simple yes or no situation. When you've decided one of the two, be kind enough to list your reasons for the respective decision.

You have a right to (adhere) obey or disobey, exactly as your boss telling you come to work on Sunday.

Secondly, do take note that God also told you (creation) to boil corn (another and rice (another creation) and not one of you have complained about it.

So, you can also choose to not subject yourself to His commandments of eating other creations and refuse cleaning your toilet, whatever happens is yours to carry.

Nothing you've said here relates to the response I gave. Please go back and read it thoroughly before coming here to to type a response.

Dtruthspeaker:


I don't think you know what objective standard is else you would not have made this post, but you act as if you do, so, What is an objective standard? Give examples for clarity

For something to be objective, it means said thing applies, irrespective of personal opinion or sentiment. An objective standard for something would be a standard that exists irrespective of personal opinions.

What's your point?

MaxInDHouse:
The Bible explicitly shows that God doesn't force Himself on anyone as long as you're off His program so if you don't feel like eating the availability of food can't save you from dying.

Not the point of the thread

Talking about morality it's when we agree on the unadulterated word of God that we can achieve morality in a perfect sense, but where most disagree on the same line of thought {John 17:22 compare to 1Corinthians 1:10} and each person just feel like setting his or her own standard {Luke 11:23} then God's say on morality can only yield positive results in the gathering of those practically applying the counsel found in God's word! Matthew 7:16-18

Refer to the third post on this thread. I can't be typing the entire thing again.

Until you've proven that your specific God is indeed the source of objective morality, your statement here is dead on arrival

hopefulLandlord:
this is great Wilgrea7. I wonder how you cope with this guy you keep debating though. I tend to skip his posts on threads. The FSM is your strength

Thank you sir.

It's mentally draining I won't even lie. I've had more productive conversations with a pile of sand.

The noodly appendages of our dear lord FSM are what keeps me sane

Wilgrea7:

Not the point of the thread
Refer to the third post on this thread. I can't be typing the entire thing again.
Until you've proven that your specific God is indeed the source of objective morality, your statement here is dead on arrival

The funniest part of your life is denying what is obvious even to the blind!

Morality only comes mind if we have to COHABIT PEACEFULLY, in the absence of that nobody needs to be moral after all it's you and you alone so whatever you do is OK.

That's why i keep telling you:
"As long as you're trying to sweep peaceful coexistence under the carpet there's nothing to discuss with your neighbours"
No matter what you can achieve without God is worthless if you can't cohabit peacefully with your neighbours, is that not the reason you're always here trying to reason with people who don't give a fvck about you?

Stop deceiving yourself!

Wilgrea7:
...
No offense, but that's a really stupid excuse for dodging a valid question... Still haven't answered the question. It's a simple yes or no situation

As you can see from the non-participation in your thread, no one is willing to answer a stupid question, as I have always told you. And telling you that you already know the True answer to your stupid question is a clear call for you to stand in the Truth we all know to be True or be the lover of lies that you seek to be. Your choice.

Wilgrea7:
...Nothing you've said here relates to the response I gave. Please go back and read it thoroughly before coming here to to type a response.

It does!

You asked about boiling fellow creations called children, so I answered you that you boil fellow creations called food eg corn, yam rice based on God's Order.

Wilgrea7:

For something to be objective, it means said thing applies, irrespective of personal opinion or sentiment. An objective standard for something would be a standard that exists irrespective of personal opinions.

What's your point?

Examples would give more clarity, so can we have examples?

MaxInDHouse:


The funniest part of your life is denying what is obvious even to the blind!

Morality only comes mind if we have to COHABIT PEACEFULLY, in the absence of that nobody needs to be moral after all it's you and you alone so whatever you do is OK.

Its kind of frustrating saying the same thing over and over again.

I assume you can read.. so kindly go ahead and read the original posts.. so you can educate yourself on what exactly we're talking about... Because right now you're just grabbing at straws.

That's why i keep telling you:
"As long as you're trying to sweep peaceful coexistence under the carpet there's nothing to discuss with your neighbours"
No matter what you can achieve without God is worthless if you can't cohabit peacefully with your neighbours, is that not the reason you're always here trying to reason with people who don't give a fvck about you?

Stop deceiving yourself!

Not an iota of sense in what you've written here. Your attempt to derail this thread is duly noted, and will not be honored.

In the presence of a God who is said to be the arbiter of good and evil, morality hinges on the things that would be considered right or wrong in respect to that God.

If your brain cannot grasp such a basic principle as the basis of this discussion... then I'm sorry.. there's not much I can do for you here.

Dtruthspeaker:


As you can see from the non-participation in your thread, no one is willing to answer a stupid question, as I have always told you. And telling you that you already know the True answer to your stupid question is a clear call for you to stand in the Truth we all know to be True or be the lover of lies that you seek to be. Your choice.

An allegedly stupid question that you've failed to give a straightforward answer to.. instead.. you're resulting to insults and selective quoting.

I've really given you too much relevance on this platform.

It does!

You asked about boiling fellow creations called children, so I answered you that you boil fellow creations called food eg corn, yam rice based on God's Order.

Where is it written or stated that we are ordered to boil corn, yam and rice? Or are you trying to make a case for morality outside your book of fairy tales?

Examples would give moreclarity, so can we have examples?

I've said it multiple times on this platform.. that if objective moral laws exist, at least in respect to a God, they don't seem to be in any way clearly well defined or stated.. and you're asking me to state them?

If you're asking of "objective" moral laws in respect to humans.. there are several that are obvious.

Murder of innocent people... R@pe.... Slavery.. all objectively wrong.

Wilgrea7:

Where is it written or stated that we are ordered to boil corn, yam and rice? Or are you trying to make a case for morality outside your book of fairy tales?

"29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat". Gen 1:29 eg Corn/Rice

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9:3 eg Chicken, Goat.

Wilgrea7:
..If you're asking of "objective" moral laws in respect to humans.. there are several that are obvious.

Murder of innocent people... R@pe.... Slavery.. all objectively wrong.

Then you have agreed with us for I have always told you that All Morals was Set and Laid by God in all the earth. That there is no place on earth where stealing or adultery is allowed.

And In spite of you people's attempt at saying that God commanded rape and slavery, I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that He did not, as evident by you people's change of posts and departure from post and at attempt at insulting me so that I would be angry and leave the issue, all of which did not work.

So take it or leave it. God had already set what you call objective Morals and it is your freewill to either obey or disobey exactly as your boss telling you come to work on Sunday.

Wilgrea7:

Its kind of frustrating saying the same thing over and over again.
I assume you can read.. so kindly go ahead and read the original posts.. so you can educate yourself on what exactly we're talking about... Because right now you're just grabbing at straws.

Is there anything called "brain" in the skull of an atheist?
You can't talk of "morality" in the absence of a SUPREME BEING!
Each person will only insist on his/her selfish cravings to set standards. I remembered a gay who said all men must keep bushy mustache and beard otherwise they should be forced into sodomy. Another a lesbian said women must avoid men because men treat women like second class homosapien. Yet another said women who aren't clothed like masquerades from head to toe should be gang raped.
My guy, to all these people what they're saying means morality to them so in the absence of a SUPREME BEING there's going to be trouble as in real trouble!

Wilgrea7:

Not an iota of sense in what you've written here. Your attempt to derail this thread is duly noted, and will not be honored.
In the presence of a God who is said to be the arbiter of good and evil, morality hinges on the things that would be considered right or wrong in respect to that God.
If your brain cannot grasp such a basic principle as the basis of this discussion... then I'm sorry.. there's not much I can do for you here.

If you're not ready to find out what each of the gods say about morality and the outcome after adherents have applied it practically then you're not ready for honest discussion what you're anticipating with all these nonsense is lawlessness. We must find out which of the gods is the true one by carefully considering the positive effects of what these gods say regarding right and wrong.
You've always talk about different gods but when it comes to what they say regarding right and wrong you know nothing except what the God of the Bible says and you're even misconstruing it to justify the atheistic ideology in your head!

Dtruthspeaker:


"29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat". Gen 1:29 eg Corn/Rice

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9:3 eg Chicken, Goat.

Ok... Noted... So i assume you're taking the words written in the bible as your source of morality.

Now we can move on to the next step, which is providing that the subjective morality portrayed in the bible is indeed objective.

Then you have agreed with us for I have always told you that All Morals was Set and Laid by God in all the earth. That there is no place on earth where stealing or adultery is allowed.

I haven't agreed with you on anything yet. You still have to prove that your specific God is the arbiter of the objective, and not subjective moral laws.

And In spite of you people's attempt at saying that God commanded rape and slavery, I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that He did not, as evident by you people's change of posts and departure from post and at attempt at insulting me so that I would be angry and leave the issue, all of which did not work.

I find this a tad bit ironical, considering you're always the one that starts off with the insults. The verses on slavery, genocide, and other abhorrent crimes are evident.

The last time I pressed you about them, your best response was “they attacked first".. and when I showed you that wasn't the case, you resulted to insults as always.

So take it or leave it. God had already set what you call objective Morals and it is your freewill to either obey or disobey exactly as your boss telling you come to work on Sunday.

I'm still waiting for the proof that your God's moral laws are indeed objective and not subjective.

The fact that you're trying to make reference to humans defeats your argument. Make reference to the toilet analogy.

The opinions and wishes of the “subjects" is irrelevant. In objective morality, the only party being considered is the arbiter.

If we consider the existence of a God as the source of morality, what humans consider as right or wrong is irrelevant, just as the opinions of the bacteria in the toilet are irrelevant.

Hopefully this isn't too hard of a concept for you to grasp

MaxInDHouse:

Is there anything called "brain" in the skull of an atheist?
You can't talk of "morality" in the absence of a SUPREME BEING!
Each person will only insist on his/her selfish cravings to set standards. I remembered a gay who said all men must keep bushy mustache and beard otherwise they should be forced into sodomy. Another a lesbian said women must avoid men because men treat women like second class homosapien. Yet another said women who aren't clothed like masquerades from head to toe should be gang raped.
My guy, to all these people what they're saying means morality to them so in the absence of a SUPREME BEING there's going to be trouble as in real trouble!

If you're not ready to find out what each of the gods say about morality and the outcome after adherents have applied it practically then you're not ready for honest discussion what you're anticipating with all these nonsense is lawlessness. We must find out which of the gods is the true one by carefully considering the positive effects of what these gods say regarding right and wrong.
You've always talk about different gods but when it comes to what they say regarding right and wrong you know nothing except what the God of the Bible says and you're even misconstruing it to justify the atheistic ideology in your head!

You're typing rubbish and you know it. The only thing you've shown so far, is that you have problems comprehending simple statements.

This thread is not about the existence of a God. It clearly states in the title that the existence of a God does not solve the moral dilemma.

Let me dumb it down for you.

Even if human accept that big sky daddy exists, human still have certain issues with morality, and what is good and bad.

Big sky daddy not solve moral problem

If you're not willing to go through the original posts to understand my position first, then don't bother mentioning me. I can't be wasting my energy arguing something that isn't the topic of the thread.

Your “finding out what different gods say" analogy is flawed... greatly.

You're the one who says that without the existence of a god, morality would be a matter of opinion.

Now, what if someone chooses a god who's definition of morality coincides with the person's opinion.

What if a person loves murder, and then chooses a god who's morality supports murder of the innocent?

You're shifting the opinions on morality from opinions among humans, to opinions among gods. Until you prove objectivity, your claims to morality are subjective.

I've said this before, and if you actually took the time to read through the thread, you'd have seen it.

But no. Arguing blindly and making reference to things unrelated to the discussion are the only things your 2kb brain can fathom.

With all due disrespect... Piss off