PS Oh and another thing: ask the so-called atheists* to explain the source and basis of their morality! How can there be objective morality if there is no God? How also can there be good and/or evil? If there is no God, how can anything (r.ape, earthquakes, poverty, etc) be evil in the first place? Afterall, their so-called "evolution" teaches "natural selection".

The above post from Enigma and another one from Thelstan, questioning the moral threshold of an athiest( a non-believer of god), is what made me jump into this debate.
And I think Majaze and I have been trying to point out the flaws of this implied god-centered morality.
So, we both clearly understood what we were arguing about.

^^

The question is completely silly and baseless. . .They keep asking childish questions like "Where do atheist get their morality?". . . Where else but  from where every body gets his/hers which is from the society and it began as a result of experimentation until people get it right , how can there be morality if there is no God, when a simple reading of their religious book shows a very CLEAR evolution of morality of their God and his chosen people. . .Later you hear silly questions like "Why is murder bad?". . .Murder is bad because it causes pain and the purpose of executing a murderer is to remove a murderer from the population and deter others, not because "they deserve it." It doesn't make us "good" people to kill/imprision a murderer - it is just an action which is necessary to help preserve a society in which people aren't free to murder without retaliation. (Because people WANT to live.) . I just keep screaming at my computer when people like William Craig keep making the completely bogus argument that God is the source of human morality when we have God sanctioning things that humans today christians included find immoral and his opponents just let him get away with it without addressing it very well. . . .The evolving nature of human morality proves our point. . . .

Enigma:
^^ I might have guessed you simply can't lift yourself to the necessary level for both understanding and objectivity/honesty.

Once again, it appears that you do not understand the implication of what you say.

Enigma:
Who introduced "God" into this discussion?

I don't care who introduced God into the discussion. What is clear to me is that you said without God, one cannot tell what is good or what is evil.

Enigma:
Look, for you to get going, you have to define "God", "good", and "evil". As I said before, if you can't do that you are just wasting everyone's time.

By God, I'm referring to the Christian God in order not to be referring to a strawGod.
I've already presented my idea on good and evil on the 92^nd post. Check my second sentence in that post. It was a direct answer to your own post.

@enigma @thelstan

Is God (CHRISTIAN ONE) evil, despite the verse indicating he created it?

@enigma @thelstan

Is God (CHRISTIAN ONE) evil, despite the verse indicating he created it?

If you find my definition for evil incomplete or defective, pls indicate why.

Kay 17:

@enigma @thelstan

Is God (CHRISTIAN ONE) evil, despite the verse indicating he created it?

I may not know enough about other worldviews on God to answer this, but since you ask of the "Christian God", then this question is otiosely superfluous in the Christian Theology.

1.) Good means well-suited to and desirable for a specific purpose.
2.) Evil means ill-suited to and undesirable for a specific purpose.
3.) The "Christian God" does not suit unto any purpose because he established all purposes.
4.) Therefore the "Christian God" is above the plains where good and evil are adjudged.

Thelstan:

I may not know enough about other worldviews on God to answer this, but since you ask of the "Christian God", then this question is otiosely superfluous in the Christian Theology.

1.) Good means well-suited to and desirable for a specific purpose.
2.) Evil means ill-suited to and undesirable for a specific purpose.
3.) The "Christian God" does not suit unto any purpose because he established all purposes.
4.) Therefore the "Christian God" is above the plains where good and evil are adjudged.

Hmmm.Specific purpose? If good and evil are tied to specific purposes, does that not contradict your much vaunted concept of objective morality? Are you not coming ful circle to agree with Mazaje's argument, that humans(thiests or athiests) agree upon, and establish thresholds for good and evil to suite their peculiarities or cultures ?

Also, I'm wondering, if the Christian god is above the plains where good and evil are adjudged,then how can he be competent to judge good and evil?

Psalms 82:
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.


2 How long will ye judge unjustly,
and accept the persons of the wicked?
Selah.


3 Defend the poor and fatherless:
do justice to the afflicted and needy.


4 Deliver the poor and needy:
rid them out of the hand of the wicked.


5 They know not, neither will they understand;
they walk on in darkness:
all the foundations of the earth are out of course.


6 I have said, Ye are gods; Joh. 10.34
and all of you are children of the Most High.


7 But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes.

@plaetton:

He asked for a Christian theological view and I gave it to him. If you want a one-size-fits-all view, sorry I can't help you there.

Maybe you should read my post again with that mindset and if it's still not clear you can ask again.

Good and evil are tied to purposes, and according to Christian theology, these purposes are DEFINED by God. And in God only. THUS only he who establishes a purpose can KNOW what is well-suited or ill-suited to the purpose. It is objective on our end, but it is subjective to God's own purposes, him being the source.

As for being above the plains of good and evil, THAT is the reason why he can judge good and evil without bias. I thought that would be obvious 

@thelstan

We on the same frequency, good and evil both entail degrees of perfection. Thus God in his primary role, primary purpose As a CREATOR. The question Is he evil and is he perfect are the same

@Kay 17

We are not on the same frequency but I believe God is perfect in his purposes.

The following verses tell accounts in an anthropocentric sense. From a human perspective (even when God is speaking)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Lamentations 3:38

We are below the plains of evaluation of good and evil. So we observe and say "Oh this is evil" or "This is good", depending on how it suits us. e.g. is it good for the US to wage war / oppress a country in the Middle East and cart off their oil? We could say it's good for the US economy and evil for that country. BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the entire picture at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that person is God.

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

I believe God is perfect in his purposes, and that's all.

We are definitely not on the same frequency then, for you do not even believe God exists, let alone believe he is perfect in his purposes.

Or how can one be perfect in purpose who is not perfect in existence?

@Kay17

You might already be aware of this but whatever the case, here is a recommended interesting reading.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_I

and

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-moralist/

It is from an atheist philosopher (he remains an atheist) who now agrees and says that without God there is no morality.

From the first link:

How I arrived at this conclusion is the subject of a book I have written during this recent period (tentatively titled Bad Faith: A Personal Memoir on Atheism, Amorality, and Animals). The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument ‘hard atheism’ because it is analogous to a thesis in philosophy known as ‘hard determinism.’ The latter holds that if metaphysical determinism is true, then there is no such thing as free will. Thus, a ‘soft determinist’ believes that, even if your reading of this column right now has followed by causal necessity from the Big slam fourteen billion years ago, you can still meaningfully be said to have freely chosen to read it. Analogously, a ‘soft atheist’ would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of ‘New Atheists’ (see Issue 78) are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

^^^^^

Looooool the rabbithole runs deeeeep

Without God there is no morality.

I couldn't agree more!

It's like saying without an arbiter there can never be a fair game. And this is incontrovertibly true.

The guy think am sotay in come say morality does not exist too cos he believes God does not exist.

So, Kay 17, does morality exist?

@thelstan

Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

@enigma

the writer saw morality as a command from a commander. I doubt if thats true, because it goes beyond a command, it is goes beyond religion. Its more like a societal conscience, a societal ATTEMPT at good. At good is an inherent value of an act not of the agent

Per Bertrand Russell

Outside human desires there is no moral standard.

@thelstan

Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

@enigma

the writer saw morality as a command from a commander. I doubt if thats true, because it goes beyond a command, it is goes beyond religion. Its more like a societal conscience, a societal ATTEMPT at good. At good is an inherent value of an act not of the agent

Per Jean Paul Sartre

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.

Kay 17:

@thelstan
Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

Humans can perceive good and evil the same way they can perceive truth and falsehood.

There are those who know something is true but will act or say otherwise. Likewise whose who know good in their hearts and do evil.

There are those who do not know the truth and ignorantly spread falsehood. Likewise those who ignorantly do evil.

And so on and so forth.

Is God's creation perfect, you ask? What do you mean by perfect? We have agreed that God is perfect, so if God is perfect and God is the creator why should the creation not be perfect since it is an act of a perfect God? Clarify your meaning.

Thelstan:

@Kay 17

We are not on the same frequency but I believe God is perfect in his purposes.

The following verses tell accounts in an anthropocentric sense. From a human perspective (even when God is speaking)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Lamentations 3:38

We are below the plains of evaluation of good and evil. So we observe and say "Oh this is evil" or "This is good", depending on how it suits us. e.g. is it good for the US to wage war / oppress a country in the Middle East and cart off their oil? We could say it's good for the US economy and evil for that country. BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the ENTIRE PICTURE at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that PERSON IS GOD

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

I believe God is perfect in his purposes, and that's all.

We are definitely not on the same frequency then, for you do not even believe God exists, let alone believe he is perfect in his purposes.

Or how can one be perfect in purpose who is not perfect in existence?

You clearly mentioned that only God can perceive good and evil, since he is the only being capable of seeing the whole picture. The idea of humans being unable to perceive good and evil is ridiculously and we cant claim God is all good if its an unknowable. Thus its a useless title.

You claim he created evil, thus created imperfection, and being imperfect himself.
Also i never agreed wit u that God was perfect.

Kay 17:

You clearly mentioned that only God can perceive good and evil, since he is the only being capable of seeing the whole picture. The idea of humans being unable to perceive good and evil is ridiculously and we cant claim God is all good if its an unknowable. Thus its a useless title.

You claim he created evil, thus created imperfection, and being imperfect himself.
Also i never agreed wit u that God was perfect.

What is your point exactly? You asked for a Christian worldview / opinion on a matter and I gave you, now you're telling what's ridiculous and useless? You think I don't find YOUR own viewpoint on the matter ridiculous and useless?

1. I never said only God can perceive good and evil. Quote me if otherwise. I said he is above it, in order to [know it absolutely, to us it appears as objectively] and thus judge good / evil without bias.
2. Where did I say evil was an imperfection?  Don't put words in my mouth please.
3. Oh you never agreed with me, but yet you said  We on the same frequency, good and evil both entail degrees of perfection.? Cool story.

I think I'm done cos I feel like either this is another dishonest discussion or else we keep misunderstanding each other.

The thing is that the atheists here still haven't explained clearly what amounts to "good" or what amounts to "evil" or what they mean by "God".

If their argument is that "God" is "evil" according to their understanding of "evil", I have no reason to argue with them as I have already pointed out earlier on the thread.

If on the other hand, their argument is that "God" is "evil" on an objective basis --- then they will have to provide us with the objective basis or rationale for ascertaining "evil".

If they are unable to do that and strive to argue as they really are doing that because there is "evil" as they understand it, God cannot exist --- that argument is a waste of time ------ because we have no reason to accept THEIR understanding of what is "evil". More importantly they cannot say that God is bound by THEIR understanding of "evil".

^^^^

You know, right? The OP began with a blanket statement that is meant to be taken objectively and yet he has refused to absolutely define the terms in that assertion.

Thelstan:

@Kay 17

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

We are "below the plains of evaluation of good and evil". BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the entire picture at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that person is God.

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

From the statement above, you 'd made it clear that humans can not perceive and decide whats good and evil. Also that God is responsible for evil.

@enigma

Definition of terms: evil has been defined too many times already. Good is antithetical to evil, its suitability and adequacy for an end. What enhances full development of human potential. God is either the Christian one or the Muslim one

@Kay17

First, a number of posters (including at least one of your fellow atheists, I believe) have already noted that your definition of "evil" is inadequate.

Second, unless you are able to present some objective basis for ascertaining what is "evil", we have no reason to accept your personal whim of what is "evil" and therefore your thesis is unsustainable. Take this example: capital punishment is practised as part of Nigerian and American laws while it is prohibited in the UK ---- so who is right? On what basis can we objectively adjudge capital punishment to be "good" or "evil"?

Third, the reality is that evangelical/militant/aggressive/fundamentalist/etc atheists who claim some "morality" have either not thought their position through logically (if they are acting honestly) or are being disingenuous and liars if they claim they can find some objective basis for morality when in truth what they are doing is situational ethics or moral relativism.

Take for example Nietzsche: many evangelical/etc atheists like to quote his famous "God is dead" but they reveal themselves as not having followed or incapable of following Nietzsche's thought through to its logical consequences one of which as admitted by Nietzsche himself is that;

morality has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.

if god r.apes it is not evil
if god m.urders it is not evil
if god l.ies it is not evil
if god f.ornicates it is not evil
if god commit mass genocide is not evil
nothing god does it evil

@enigma

If my definition is not adequate, point out the weakness, whether its too narrow or too broad.

Its an objective test of imperfection. Or are you denying that there is no evil in our world?

Enigma:

@Kay17

First, a number of posters (including at least one of your fellow atheists, I believe) have already noted that your definition of "evil" is inadequate.

Second, unless you are able to present some objective basis for ascertaining what is "evil", we have no reason to accept your personal whim of what is "evil" and therefore your thesis is unsustainable. Take this example: capital punishment is practised as part of Nigerian and American laws while it is prohibited in the UK ---- so who is right? On what basis can we objectively adjudge capital punishment to be "good" or "evil"?

The only basis for determining what evil is lies on what the society decides, if the society decides that slavery isn't evil as it was for hundreds of years in the past then it wouldn't be considered evil an evil. . .If the society decides that eating pork is evil then it remains evil until the society says other wise, if the society says brea[i]s[/i]t argumentation is evil then it remains evil, if it says homose[i]x[/i]uality isnt evil then it remains a good thing. . .Nothing is good or bad until when the society decides to label it as good or bad. . . .Heck your own God and his chosen people once saw human sacrifice as a good thing. . . .Once your God was the one giving out injunctions on how to brand and enslave people. . . .Good or evil is defined by the society mostly on what they feel will preserve the society and some other reasons as well. . .When sick people were thought to be against the interest of the society in an enclosed place your God was their saying he doesn't want them in his temples. . .

Third, the reality is that evangelical/militant/aggressive/fundamentalist/etc atheists who claim some "morality" have either not thought their position through logically (if they are acting honestly) or are being disingenuous and liars if they claim they can find some objective basis for morality when in truth what they are doing is situational ethics or moral relativism.

The reality is that the completely  deluded and lying theist keep making baseless claims without backing them up to their logical conclusions . . . They just keep begging their questions and displaying their deluded credentials for all to see all the time. . . Morality is not  objective in the real sense. . .The basis of morality and all moral codes of conducts is the human society. . . .The liars keep talking about their God being the source of human morality when reality shows that their point is false. . .If enslaving children and genocide is morally wrong objectively how then can a God that espouses slavery and genocide be said to be the source of morality or that objective source of moral code . . . .The thousands of years of human moral evolution came about through trial and error and experimentation not through any God even though people use God as their consensus when bringing about or changing moral principles. . .

Take for example Nietzsche: many evangelical/etc atheists like to quote his famous "God is dead" but they reveal themselves as not having followed or incapable of following Nietzsche's thought through to its logical consequences one of which as admitted by Nietzsche himself is that; 

An who made Nietzsche an atheist authority?  He was simply offering his opinion on which he is very free to express, his opinion on morality remains his opinion and it has nothing to do with reality or morality and its foundation. . .Millions of atheist have never heard his name before ? . . . .Jesus said that if your right hand will cause you to sin its better you cut it off, no? He also said that if any one slaps you, you are to turn the other cheek, if a person takes you shirt you are to give him your coat as well. . .It seems christians who believe in Jesus have not followed or are incapable of following Jesus's thoughts through to its logical consequences and hence they can be claimed to be deluded liars and s[i]t[/i]upid hypocrites. . .

With God, all is permitted. I simply don't see why people fail to understand this.

^^
With good all the things that were consider evil today like slavery, genocide, human sacrifice,racism and tribalism, stoning people to death for disobeying their parents and many other things that inspire our moral repulsion were all practice with god himself dishing out the injunctions according to the story. . . . Modern day liars and christian apologist like William Craig will tell you that maybe the writers of the story got it wrong and were not really ordered to do all those things by their god. . . . . . .He believes in the bible but doesn't want to believe in the evil actions ordered by his god and his god's chosen men. . . .How dishonest can one be to himself, yet we are to believe that this character described in the book is the source of human morality. . . .I wonder why they keep lying to them selves. . .

mazaje:

^^
With good all the things that were consider evil today like slavery, genocide, human sacrifice,racism and tribalism, stoning people to death for disobeying their parents and many other things that inspire our moral repulsion were all practice with god himself dishing out the injunctions according to the story. . . . Modern day liars and christian apologist like William Craig will tell you that maybe the writers of the story got it wrong and were not really ordered to do all those things by their god. . . . . . .He believes in the bible but doesn't want to believe in the evil actions ordered by his god and his god's chosen men. . . .How dishonest can one be to himself, yet we are to believe that this character described in the book is the source of human morality. . . .I wonder why they keep lying to them selves. . .

Exactly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that they wish to hide their God from view and instead present a strawGod instead.

"Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist".

How true is this statement? Mazaje's point completely destroys this assertion I believe.