I want to know since you have compared secular humanism to satanism and have also said that atheists do not have the moral ground to judge pastors or MOGs.

Mr_Anony:

First of all, not every pastor is failing. But then, the reason why pastors can fail is because they have a code of conduct by which they are judged by.
An atheist/agnostic has no such code of conduct. How can a man fail if he doesn't first rise?

MacDaddy01: I want to know since you have compared secular humanism to satanism and have also said that atheists do not have the moral ground to judge pastors or MOGs.

perhaps you may want to start by giving us the details of this atheist moral code of conduct by which you judge these "MoGs"

Mr_Anony:
perhaps you may want to start by giving us the details of this atheist moral code of conduct by which you judge these "MoGs"

This is where you debunk yourself with wickedness. Do I need a moral code, God or the bible to know that killing, stealing or beating someone for no reason is wrong?


Surely, if you need a moral code to know these things, you must be awicked christian bigot like I said all along.


It is like asking me where my certificate for walking is. Do I need a cerificate for something that is naturally a part of me?

MacDaddy01:



This is where you debunk yourself with wickedness. Do I need a moral code, God or the bible to know that killing, stealing or beating someone for no reason is wrong?


Surely, if you need a moral code to know these things, you must be awicked christian bigot like I said all along.


It is like asking me where my certificate for walking is. Do I need a cerificate for something that is naturally a part of me?

lol, so you have no moral code? You don't have the right to judge another person's morality.
If you are going to judge another person's walking style, then you must provide your certificate for walking.

Mr_Anony:
lol, so you have no moral code? You don't have the right to judge another person's morality.
If you are going to judge another person's walking style, then you must provide your certificate for walking.

Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster!


You are showing your true colours! Everyone knows how to walk. Surely, even a 5 year old can tell that something is wrong with someone limping.


Humans already have a basic set of moral principles that come prepackaged. These morals become better defined when we interact with others in society and use logic plus science to hone them. What we have achieved so far as a species is to identify moral universalism.


So when asking me for my moral code, all I can do is laugh because you are trying to force a discredited christian world view of the bible/.christ as morality for all humans into reality

MacDaddy01:

Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster!


You are showing your true colours! Everyone knows how to walk. Surely, even a 5 year old can tell that something is wrong with someone limping.


Humans already have a basic set of moral principles that come prepackaged. These morals become better defined when we interact with others in society and use logic plus science to hone them. What we have achieved so far as a species is to identify moral universalism.


So when asking me for my moral code, all I can do is laugh because you are trying to force a discredited christian world view of the bible/.christ as morality for all humans into reality

Lol, actually the bible tells us that God has written His law upon our hearts. That's where our moral code comes from. What you are doing is to accept the Law but reject the Law giver.

Please tell me how you can logically say that we are born prepackaged with a set of moral principles yet when asked how come this is so? i.e. who or what laid down these principles? your answer is that no such moral law-giver exists.

Now the next thing that springs from this is why should such a moral-code which has no author be binding?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, actually the bible tells us that God has written His law upon our hearts. That's where our moral code comes from. What you are doing is to accept the Law but reject the Law giver.

yet if this lawgiver specifically and in accordance to scriptures ask you to stone your daughter to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, you will rationalise and conclude that it is not the same yahweh whom you refer to as a lawgiver that told you so, why.

its because you have a sense of morality than is better than what yahweh gave you

below are few of the laws of this lawgiver

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.--Deut 22:20-21

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Ye shall keep the sabbath ... every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.--Ex 31:14

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deut 13:6-10

Mr_Anony:
Please tell me how you can logically say that we are born prepackaged with a set of moral principles yet when asked how come this is so? i.e. who or what laid down these principles? your answer is that no such moral law-giver exists.

that is the question of altruism and human morality which scientists are unravelling more and more as knowledge increases. but several religions including christianity has falsely attributed this to their various gods, which are all easily disprovable.

cyrexx:

yet if this lawgiver specifically and in accordance to scriptures ask you to stone your daughter to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, you will rationalise and conclude that it is not the same yahweh whom you refer to as a lawgiver that told you so, why.

its because you have a sense of morality than is better than what yahweh gave you

below are few of the laws of this lawgiver

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.--Deut 22:20-21

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Ye shall keep the sabbath ... every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.--Ex 31:14

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deut 13:6-10




that is the question of altruism and human morality which scientists are unravelling more and more as knowledge increases. but several religions including christianity has falsely attributed this to their various gods, which are all easily disprovable.

bla bla bla, the problem posed to logicboy was to tell us how a law can exist without a law-giver or why such a law should be binding
. . . . but of course you had to ramble on about how christianity is everything you love to hate.

Mr_Anony: bla bla bla, the problem posed to logicboy was to tell us how a law can exist without a law-giver or why such a law should be binding
. . . . but of course you had to ramble on about how christianity is everything you love to hate.

welldone,

nice deflection when you are unable to refute the my statement/post. by the way i dont hate christianity. i merely quoted the scriptures upon which christianity is based upon. that is not hate by any definition of the word.

my post clearly and undeniably show that there is no "personal" or "divine" law-giver for human morality. its part of our evolutionary history, which explains why your sense of morality is much much better than the so-called lawgiver whose laws are mostly relevant to iron age barbarism era.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, actually the bible tells us that God has written His law upon our hearts. That's where our moral code comes from. What you are doing is to accept the Law but reject the Law giver.

If truly the law is in our hearts, then there is no need for the bible in the first place. Your above commment is nonsensiscal and self-refuting.

Mr_Anony:
Please tell me how you can logically say that we are born prepackaged with a set of moral principles yet when asked how come this is so? i.e. who or what laid down these principles? your answer is that no such moral law-giver exists.

There is no moral law-giver. You are entering into creationism

Evolution and sociology explains a lot. Our intelligence is evolutionary. We inherit some instincts from our ancestors and we also hone them with relationships with other people in the society

Mr_Anony:
Now the next thing that springs from this is why should such a moral-code which has no author be binding?

Huh, so god makes a law binding? You might want to reread your bible and see what would happened if we accepted the moral authority of your god.

We would be stoning gays and murdering unebleievers.

Even if one didn't come pre-packaged with some sort of morality, and that is debatable, he should accept christianity's code why? The code of ethics of a religion which believes in talking fires and espouses the death penalty for those who work on sabbath (the current discrimination against homosexuals is usually attributed to an OT verse so it counts, many simply enjoy cherry picking when it fits their needs). A religion based on faith. One, crucially, often crippled by dogma.

Sam harris points out that if you whisked an european from about 1000 years ago to today, even doors that seem to magically open when you approach them will dazzle him, let's not even talk of exploring the solar system. However, mention christianity, its still pretty much the same thing. There isn't much you could tell him that would surprise him so long as he could read and had access to the bible during his era. If he were a christian, he might even be pissed with what he'd view as the church making concessions (as it's constantly being proven wrong) on various issues. A religion from a bygone era where slavery, mysoginism etc where morally acceptable (in fact favored, eg with the way women were treated. who let them out of the kitchen?).

How are this religions ethics, man made as far some members of other religions and the irreligious are concerned, outdated or from rival deities to other religious denominations, be more acceptable then a group of ethics arrived at by a consensus and accepting a few basic principles which objectively aid the survival, success, quality of life of sentient life: basic rights for all sentients?

wiegraf: Even if one didn't come pre-packaged with some sort of morality, and that is debatable, he should accept christianity's code why? The code of ethics of a religion which believes in talking fires and espouses the death penalty for those who work on sabbath (the current discrimination against homosexuals is usually attributed to an OT verse so it counts, many simply enjoy cherry picking when it fits their needs). A religion based on faith. One, crucially, often crippled by dogma.

Sam harris points out that if you whisked an european from about 1000 years ago to today, even doors that seem to magically open when you approach them will dazzle him, let's not even talk of exploring the solar system. However, mention christianity, its still pretty much the same thing. There isn't much you could tell him that would surprise him so long as he could read and had access to the bible during his era. If he were a christian, he might even be pissed with what he'd view as the church making concessions (as it's constantly being proven wrong) on various issues. A religion from a bygone era where slavery, mysoginism etc where morally acceptable (in fact favored, eg with the way women were treated. who let them out of the kitchen?).

How are this religions ethics, man made as far some members of other religions and the irreligious are concerned, outdated or from rival deities to other religious denominations, be more acceptable then a group of ethics arrived at by a consensus and accepting a few basic principles which objectively aid the survival, success, quality of life of sentient life: basic rights for all sentients?

Too much sense.


You have scared Anony away!

cyrexx:

welldone,

nice deflection when you are unable to refute the my statement/post. by the way i dont hate christianity. i merely quoted the scriptures upon which christianity is based upon. that is not hate by any definition of the word.

my post clearly and undeniably show that there is no "personal" or "divine" law-giver for human morality. its part of our evolutionary history, which explains why your sense of morality is much much better than the so-called lawgiver whose laws are mostly relevant to iron age barbarism era.

Again with the God-bashing. I haven't talked about Christianity on this thread but you just had to jump ahead and take a swipe.
If our moral laws are simply evolved laws, how do we know that they are better or worse than anything?

MacDaddy01:

If truly the law is in our hearts, then there is no need for the bible in the first place. Your above commment is nonsensiscal and self-refuting.

There is no moral law-giver. You are entering into creationism

Evolution and sociology explains a lot. Our intelligence is evolutionary. We inherit some instincts from our ancestors and we also hone them with relationships with other people in the society

Huh, so god makes a law binding? You might want to reread your bible and see what would happened if we accepted the moral authority of your god.

We would be stoning gays and murdering unebleievers.

stop dancing around and taking swipes at christianity. Just answer the question. Tell us how a law can exist without a law giver

wiegraf: Even if one didn't come pre-packaged with some sort of morality, and that is debatable, he should accept christianity's code why? The code of ethics of a religion which believes in talking fires and espouses the death penalty for those who work on sabbath (the current discrimination against homosexuals is usually attributed to an OT verse so it counts, many simply enjoy cherry picking when it fits their needs). A religion based on faith. One, crucially, often crippled by dogma.

Sam harris points out that if you whisked an european from about 1000 years ago to today, even doors that seem to magically open when you approach them will dazzle him, let's not even talk of exploring the solar system. However, mention christianity, its still pretty much the same thing. There isn't much you could tell him that would surprise him so long as he could read and had access to the bible during his era. If he were a christian, he might even be pissed with what he'd view as the church making concessions (as it's constantly being proven wrong) on various issues. A religion from a bygone era where slavery, mysoginism etc where morally acceptable (in fact favored, eg with the way women were treated. who let them out of the kitchen?).

How are this religions ethics, man made as far some members of other religions and the irreligious are concerned, outdated or from rival deities to other religious denominations, be more acceptable then a group of ethics arrived at by a consensus and accepting a few basic principles which objectively aid the survival, success, quality of life of sentient life: basic rights for all sentients?

Again you've joined the bandwagon and jumped ahead to attacking religion.
The question I asked is this how does a law exist without a law-giver and if it does, why should it be binding?

Mr_Anony:

stop dancing around and taking swipes at christianity. Just answer the question. Tell us how a law can exist without a law giver

Did i not explain with evolution and social relations? See the artful dodger doing his dodging again!

MacDaddy01:

If truly the law is in our hearts, then there is no need for the bible in the first place. Your above commment is nonsensiscal and self-refuting.




There is no moral law-giver. You are entering into creationism

[size=14pt]Evolution and sociology explains a lot. Our intelligence is evolutionary. We inherit some instincts from our ancestors and we also hone them with relationships with other people in the society




[/size]Huh, so god makes a law binding? You might want to reread your bible and see what would happened if we accepted the moral authority of your god.

We would be stoning gays and murdering unebleievers.

MacDaddy01:


Did i not explain with evolution and social relations? See the artful dodger doing his dodging again!

Oh good, you said:
"Evolution and sociology explains a lot. Our intelligence is evolutionary. We inherit some instincts from our ancestors and we also hone them with relationships with other people in the society"

I hope you do realize that unless we all have a one particular common ancestor, our "inherited instincts" will differ greatly and hence will not be binding on everyone.

Mr_Anony:
Oh good, you said:
"Evolution and sociology explains a lot. Our intelligence is evolutionary. We inherit some instincts from our ancestors and we also hone them with relationships with other people in the society"

I hope you do realize that unless we all have a one particular common ancestor, our "inherited instincts" will differ greatly and hence will not be binding on everyone.

Is that some christian biology? As a species, we share some common traits. There wull be differences due to adaptation to different environments and other sociological factors.



It seems that I have answered your question

You have been served

MacDaddy01:

Is that some christian biology? As a species, we share some common traits. There wull be differences due to adaptation to different environments and other sociological factors.



It seems that I have answered your question

You have been served

If we have differences based on our different environments and different sociological factors, why then should our moral laws be the same? Why should what you consider good and evil be respected by MoGs or anyone else since you are obviously not influenced by the same environment and sociological factors?

Mr_Anony:
If we have differences based on our different environments and different sociological factors, why then should our moral laws be the same? Why should what you consider good and evil be respected by MoGs or anyone else since you are obviously not influenced by the same environment and sociological factors?

Moral universalism. look it up.


Furthermore, there are basic traits we have as a species. Some basic form of morality that we have inbuilt. Moral universalism comes in here.


You have been served

MacDaddy01:


Moral universalism. look it up.


Furthermore, there are basic traits we have as a species. Some basic form of morality that we have inbuilt. Moral universalism comes in here.


You have been served

Let me ask you this: Is morality objective or subjective to the individual?

Mr_Anony: Again with the God-bashing. I haven't talked about Christianity on this thread but you just had to jump ahead and take a swipe.

so when did quoting the words of your divine law giver become god-bashing all of a sudden. na wa o.

Mr_Anony:
If our moral laws are simply evolved laws, how do we know that they are better or worse than anything?

i have given you answers to these question which you have skillfully ignored as you usually do. let me indulge you again in in slightly different words:

my earlier post (about why you will not obey your law giver to stone a wayward daughter) clearly and undeniably show that there is no "personal" or "divine" law-giver for human morality as you now appeal to a sense of morality better than what your religion teaches. Human morality is part of our evolutionary history, which explains why your sense of morality is much much better than the so-called lawgiver whose laws are mostly relevant to iron age barbarism era BUT not anymore in our modern era.

cyrexx:

so when did quoting the words of your divine law giver become god-bashing all of a sudden. na wa o.




i have given you answers to these question which you have skillfully ignored as you usually do. let me indulge you again in in slightly different words:

my earlier post (about why you will not obey your law giver to stone a wayward daughter) clearly and undeniably show that there is no "personal" or "divine" law-giver for human morality as you now appeal to a sense of morality better than what your religion teaches. Human morality is part of our evolutionary history, which explains why your sense of morality is much much better than the so-called lawgiver whose laws are mostly relevant to iron age barbarism era not anymore in our modern era.

You are still dancing around. The question now is not who the law giver is? but whether or not a moral law-giver must exist

Mr_Anony:
Let me ask you this: Is morality objective or subjective to the individual?

Depends on the situation

Why are you asking this question? Have you finally seen the errors of your arguments?

Mr_Anony:
You are still dancing around. The question now is not who the law giver is? but whether or not a moral law-giver must exist

YES. A moral law giver DO exist and it we humans who frame these laws and seek to enforce them on others through our imaginary gods.


i have given you a direct answer to your question, i'll appreciate if you can reciprocate and avoid deflecting my questions

MacDaddy01:


Depends on the situation

Why are you asking this question? Have you finally seen the errors of your arguments?

You are the one holding up moral universalism. For morality to be universal, it must be objective. If morality is objective, then it must be based on something. The question would now arise: what is it based on?
If on the other hand, you claim that it is subjective, then you cannot claim "moral universalism".

Don't just throw in an 'ism' if you don't fully understand what it means.

Any way, I am interested in knowing these situations where the subjectivity of morality changes

cyrexx:

YES. A moral law giver DO exist and it we humans who frame these laws and seek to enforce them on others through our imaginary gods.


i have given you a direct answer to your question, i'll appreciate if you can reciprocate and avoid deflecting my questions

If a moral law-giver exists, can you describe it or at least give qualities that it must possess.

Mr_Anony:
If a moral law-giver exists, can you describe it or at least give qualities that it must possess.

i believe you can read properly because i have answered this question before you even asked:

YES. A moral law giver DO exist and it we humans who frame these laws and seek to enforce them on others through our imaginary gods

Mr_Anony:
You are the one holding up moral universalism. For morality to be universal, it must be objective. If morality is objective, then it must be based on something. The question would now arise: what is it based on?
If on the other hand, you claim that it is subjective, then you cannot claim "moral universalism".

Don't just throw in an 'ism' if you don't fully understand what it means.

Any way, I am interested in knowing these situations where the subjectivity of morality changes

Are you foolish? Who are you trying to bamboozle here? Its bad enough that you switched the topic after you have lost the debate on whether atheists have morals but to now claim indirectly that I dont know the meaning of moral universalism is just plain foolishness.


Morality is mostly subjective but in some instances, there are clear cut cases of objective morality where we all say that an action is inhuman, wrong or immoral.

For instance, marriage of cousins was not seen as incest (with European monarchs and Muslims) until science proved that there is a high consanguinity in first cousins.


The morality changed. Unfortunately, like christians, the muslims believe in absolute morality and the moral law-giver sanctioned cousin marriage and so, first cousin marriage is allowed in islam.

cyrexx:

i believe you can read properly because i have answered this question before you even asked:

YES. A moral law giver DO exist and it we humans who frame these laws and seek to enforce them on others through our imaginary gods

of course I can read properly.

You say a moral law-giver exists then you turn around and say that humans frame the moral laws. Are you saying that humans the moral law giver? If yes, why should one human's law be binding on another human?

Mr_Anony:

of course I can read properly.

You say a moral law-giver exists then you turn around and say that humans fame the moral laws. Are you saying that humans the moral law giver? If yes, why should one human's law be binding on another human?

pls read properly again because the answer has been given:

Humans seek to enforce these laws on others through appeal to their imaginary gods

Mr_Anony:
Again you've joined the bandwagon and jumped ahead to attacking religion.
The question I asked is this how does a law exist without a law-giver and if it does, why should it be binding?

You didn't ask me any question. Even if you did ask one to the thread in general I was just pointing out that even if we were not pre-packaged with some 'morality' by our genes (which seem to be an issue with you, and that is debatable even, but we can ignore that) there's no reason to take up christianity's. In fact, its arguably more pernicious than many other philosophies. And I was not attacking religion, I was stating facts, mostly about christianity.

The question you ask, I'm not sure you've constructed it properly. Laws of what nature? Physical laws, the laws of nature etc do not have a creator for instance, they just are. You can't break them thus they're being binding is a non-issue. You don't have a choice. These are still called 'laws'.

Are you referring to moral laws? Perhaps there are some coded into us making them physical laws (well, as much as is possible when you consider free will vs determinism, emotions etc). I think this is the majority view in the scientific community. But for laws that are not physical or strictly objective in nature (like mathematical), of course there's a law-giver. If you want to know who the law-giver would be in the case of morality (edit: assuming it is non-physical ie) and other non-physical laws related to human affairs then that would be: us.