@Cyrexx, the contest today is not whether God exists or not. The contest is whether you have an objective standard for morality

cyrexx:

i have clearly done that, but you choose to ignore it because of your religious assumptions, which you cannot successfully justify.

your "religious mind" is obviously overiding your "rational mind"

You have not provided a logical argument for objective morality. If you have, the following questions should be easy for you to answer but you keep avoiding them.

Do you believe in moral absolutes? Yes or no

If yes, what or who defines these absolutes?

If no, how can you have an objective morality without moral absolutes?

Enigma: ^^^ As with many things, the issue has been discussed here before and in one case not even that long ago.

See from this post and onwards (or the whole thread): https://www.nairaland.com/810960/god-evil#9636315

In that thread, one of the forum's atheist was at least honest enough to accept that there is no objective morality (i.e. in the atheistic worldview). Also if you look in the last page of the thread, you will see quotes from atheist thinkers, like Russell, Sartre etc etc acknowledging that in the atheistic worldview there cannot be an objective moral standard.

The only way that there can be objective morality is first to acknowledge or grant the existence of God.

Nice topic there, This is exactly what I am trying to point out to Cyrexx here but he doesn't seem to get it. I have challenged him to provide a standard for objective morality absent of a higher power but instead of doing that he tries to say God is evil without giving an objective method of identifying evil.

Mr_Anony: @Cyrexx, the contest today is not whether God exists or not. The contest is whether you have an objective standard for morality

but how can we progress with your presupposition that christian god exists. these assumptions will override a lot of things in your attempt to justify his supposed objective moral codes

Mr_Anony:
You have not provided a logical argument for objective morality. If you have, the following questions should be easy for you to answer but you keep avoiding them.

Do you believe in moral absolutes? Yes or no

If yes, what or who defines these absolutes?

If no, how can you have an objective morality without moral absolutes?

i dont understand what you mean by moral absolutes. can you clearly define it in a simple language

Mr_Anony: @Cyrexx, the contest today is not whether God exists or not. The contest is whether you have an objective standard for morality

but how can we progress with your presupposition that christian god exists. these assumptions will override a lot of things in your attempt to justify his supposed objective moral codes.

Mr_Anony:
You have not provided a logical argument for objective morality. If you have, the following questions should be easy for you to answer but you keep avoiding them.

Do you believe in moral absolutes? Yes or no

If yes, what or who defines these absolutes?

If no, how can you have an objective morality without moral absolutes?

i dont understand what you mean by moral absolutes. can you clearly define it in a simple language

Mr_Anony:

Nice topic there, This is exactly what I am trying to point out to Cyrexx here but he doesn't seem to get it. I have challenged him to provide a standard for objective morality absent of a higher power but instead of doing that he tries to say God is evil without giving an objective method of identifying evil.

i have in many of my earlier posts which you willfully ignore, for example

cyrexx: my definition of good (or morality) is not based on anything mysterious or metaphysical but objective general sense of well-being we humans desire for ourselves. The way to be good or moral is to first learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature—especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function and why we behave the way we do. Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to which we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering.

By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended. Of course, we often act in positive ways to stop the pain of others. This is compassion. You can be considered moral if you are passively not causing unnecessary harm—I do think most human beings who are mentally healthy will empathize with the sufferings of others and will naturally want to reach out.

that is what my objective basis morality is based on. that is the true meaning of being good for goodness sake, not because of hell or heaven.

that is the universal standard for what good (morality) is and good is always any intentions and actions that will benefit another human being both locally and globally, both in the short term or the long term.

morality is represented in "mentally healthy" human thoughts and motives and consequently actions.

morality is first of all subjective and consequently as social beings, we humans we can formulate laws that regulate our society to have an objective basis for this morality. we can do all these without resorting to an imaginary higher power.

Mr_Anony: I am relatively new on this site but I have come to realize that sometimes it becomes very dificult to debate a person when you don't even know exactly where he or she is coming from. I am calling on Logicboy, Martian, Cyrexx e.t.c. and whoever wants to join in to give a clear definition of their worldview, their stance on God, morality and nature.

For instance I'll start by saying: I am a Christian, I believe in God as defined by the bible. I believe that all creation i.e. all things we observe in nature was made by Him and without God, nothing can exist. I believe in moral absolutes that without God there is no standard for good and evil. I believe that God is Good. I believe that the only way to live a fulfilled life is to live a life that glorifies God. This is what I believe. This is my worldview/philosophy

I have stated my stance, I would like to hear yours and based on our worldviews perhaps we can ponder over what is good. Thanks y'all.

The constant evolution of human morality destroys your argument of morailty being objective. . . .

The purpose of morality morality is survival.Morality has to be in place to create order, coperation, forge togetherness, and ıt's untimate goal is to create a society that ıs less chaotic or free from chaos. Morality is a rule that guides the behaviour of each individual and it is based exclusively on the subjective scale of values of each one of those individuals. This moral guideline usually includes the same prohibitions found in the penal code and the laws regulating commercial exchanges between citizens, but the important difference is that the moral guideline that prohibits murder is obeyed “as the thing to do” as it is a ruling rooted in the self and not because of the existence of police. Morality is NEVER objectiveç it varies from place to place and is constantly evolving.

Even some of your biblical ınjunctions are now considered to be useless in today's world and according to today's already evolved moral codes. . . .Example ıs the sexist ınjuction that women are not supposed to teach in church or usurp a man's authority.

Mr_Anony: ^^^^I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?

nice one, you define your standard of objective morality specifically to make your christian god qualify.

i will respond by saying that for anything to be a true standard of morality,

1. it must be clear and uniform with no ambiguity or different contradictory interpretations

2. it must not follow iron age barbarism of killing every man woman and child who does not worship a Jewish deity

3. it must not threaten to burn a living soul in eternity for trillions of years for a little sin commited in a short life time

4. it must be able prevent misinterpretation and stealing of god's identity to confuse humanity with various religions

5. it must not give a loophole of bypassing justice by repenting shortly before death and have all your sins wiped away thereby guaranteeing no justice for the victims of this offender

6. it must not condemn an innocent morally good man to eternity in hell simply for faithfully following his parent's religion which incidentally is not a religion of a Jewish deity

7. it must not borrow its elements from earlier ancient religions like zoroastrianism and greek mythologies


and one last "jara"

8 . it must not be blind to iron age barbarism like slavery.


i can give you many more, but these seven, nay eight, will suffice for now

If we are to let laws to be an exclusive dictate by man there will be a limitation to the extent to which man can make law due to an inherent limitation of man.

However, it is wrong for one to stick to laws because of fear of purnishment, or just because of what one stand to get if the laws were bad
,
That will show that the individual is compel to be who he will otherwise not be. Or who he is not.


U will not enter into a marriage alliace with someone if u know that deep down in his/her heart does not love u even though the person gos through the motion to show he/she does.
That will be deceitful.


So, a threath to get people conform will not get sincere followership. But conviction will, owing to an honest mind. Isaiah 5:20


Q, how can man verify that a marital offer is genuine and not out of selfish intent?

Answer. No known law has been put in place by man to counter this deceit.

So, man is ill equip to set perfectly limit of what is good and what is bad.


But we have come to know that coveteousness exist and that it is bad.
a superior being that can read the mind has said "thou shall not covet"

This shows his superiority and lagitimacy to give a better law than man.

So, good and bad should follow his yardstick. Due to superior abilities.


Can you(man or woman varify coveteousness defaulters?)

cyrexx: my definition of good (or morality) is not based on anything mysterious or metaphysical but objective general sense of well-being we humans desire for ourselves. The way to be good or moral is to first learn[b] what causes harm and how to avoid it.[/b]

You didn't explain:
What is this general sense of wellbeing and what makes it universal to all humans?
People vary in what they percieve to be harmful, how can an objective morality depend on varying perceptions of harm?

that is what my objective basis morality is based on. that is the true meaning of being good for goodness sake, not because of hell or heaven.

Again you are trying to base your morality on a negative you cannot say good for goodness sake when you haven't properly established what good is.

morality is first of all subjective and consequently as social beings, we humans we can formulate laws that regulate our society to have an objective basis for this morality. we can do all these without resorting to an imaginary higher power.

This is where you messed up your whole argument you cannot formulate an objective morality from various subjective moralities. It does not follow.

cyrexx:
but how can we progress with your presupposition that christian god exists. these assumptions will override a lot of things in your attempt to justify his supposed objective moral codes
i dont understand what you mean by moral absolutes. can you clearly define it in a simple language

Moral absolutes means that some things are wrong no matter how you look at it and some things are right no matter how you look at it e.g rape is morally wrong no matter how you look at it and compassion is morally right no matter how you look at it.
can you now answer the questions?

cyrexx:


nice one, you define your standard of objective morality specifically to make your christian god qualify.

i will respond by saying that for anything to be a true standard of morality,

1. it must be clear and uniform with no ambiguity or different contradictory interpretations

2. it must not follow iron age barbarism of killing every man woman and child who does not worship a Jewish deity

3. it must not threaten to burn a living soul in eternity for trillions of years for a little sin commited in a short life time

4. it must be able prevent misinterpretation and stealing of god's identity to confuse humanity with various religions

5. it must not give a loophole of bypassing justice by repenting shortly before death and have all your sins wiped away thereby guaranteeing no justice for the victims of this offender

6. it must not condemn an innocent morally good man to eternity in hell simply for faithfully following his parent's religion which incidentally is not a religion of a Jewish deity

7. it must not borrow its elements from earlier ancient religions like zoroastrianism and greek mythologies


and one last "jara"

8 . it must not be blind to iron age barbarism like slavery.


i can give you many more, but these seven, nay eight, will suffice for now

Now you are making a childish counter argument whose aim is simply to attack christianity. Look at the 7 points I gave you and tell me if that described you, would it qualify you to be the fairest judge? If yes then provide something else other than God that fits the bill. If no, explain how so.
It is interesting however that you seem to agree that those qualities indeed do describe God of the bible.

mazaje: The purpose of morality morality is survival.

Wrong. If the purpose of morality is survival, then all living things on every level must have a measure of morality.

Morality has to be in place to create order, coperation, forge togetherness, and ıt's untimate goal is to create a society that ıs less chaotic or free from chaos. Morality is a rule that guides the behaviour of each individual and it is based exclusively on the subjective scale of values of each one of those individuals.

Morality does not have to be in place to create order, to create order you need laws, and these laws must be no respecter of persons i.e. they must be objective. If morality is subjective as you suggest then that means that each person's definition of good and evil varies therefore we can never truly define good and evil hence we can never have a fair legal system.

This moral guideline usually includes the same prohibitions found in the penal code and the laws regulating commercial exchanges between citizens, but the important difference is that the moral guideline that prohibits murder is obeyed “as the thing to do” as it is a ruling rooted in the self and not because of the existence of police. Morality is NEVER objectiveç it varies from place to place and is constantly evolving.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. first you define morality as a rule based on a subjective scale of values and then you go on to try to describe the thing that prohibits murder as rooted in self.( Which self are you referring to here because if individual morality is subjective, some selves will simply not have anything prohibiting murder).
Now after defining murder as an absolute, you go on to state that "morality can never be objective", this line of reasoning does not follow

Even some of your biblical ınjunctions are now considered to be useless in today's world and according to today's already evolved moral codes. . . .Example ıs the sexist ınjuction that women are not supposed to teach in church or usurp a man's authority.

The question about using the bible as a moral guide isn't about whether the bible is followed or not but whether the morality of the bible is objective. When you talk about evolved moral codes, what you are saying is that something that used to be morally wrong can become morally right. I don't know this to be true.
The example you gave in the bible by the way was not a moral law rather a ceremonial law detailing how people should behave in church. It is just like saying that the law that demands that you stand to attention when the national anthem is playing so as to show respect to Nigeria can be defined as a moral law.

mazaje:

The constant evolution of human morality destroys your argument of morailty being objective. . . .

If you claim that morality evolves, then you must prove how it evolves, tell us the stages it has been through, what stage it is at now and what stage it is likely going to evolve into and most importantly, you must state how you know these for sure.

Mr_Anony:
Now you are making a childish counter argument whose aim is simply to attack christianity.

wrong

i am not attacking christianity but simply to show you the fallacy of your religious assumptions. you cant just define morality with your assumptions and think you are the only one with such rights.

but let me briefly summarise my reply before this degenerates into name calling

i have established a clearly understandable realistic objective basis for morality [/b]in my various earlier posts but you [b]keep denying that i have not because you have some religious assumptions which you expect me to allude to.

i can keep going with you back and forth forever while you are re-stating in slightly different words the same thing that has been effectively addressed earlier in my posts.
this will waste a lot of time and a lot people's patience as repetition is boring and adds little value after the initial insights have been stated.

you call me childish while you are blind to your own childish tenacity of holding on to a fallacious assumptions that has been earlier disproved and shown to hold no water.

until you bring new points that have not been addressed, i dont see any benefit of going back and forth with you on the same points only in slightly different words.

good day

mazaje: The purpose of morality morality is survival.Morality has to be in place to create order, coperation, forge togetherness, and ıt's untimate goal is to create a society that ıs less chaotic or free from chaos. Morality is a rule that guides the behaviour of each individual and it is based exclusively on the subjective scale of values of each one of those individuals. This moral guideline usually includes the same prohibitions found in the penal code and the laws regulating commercial exchanges between citizens, but the important difference is that the moral guideline that prohibits murder is obeyed “as the thing to do” as it is a ruling rooted in the self and not because of the existence of police. Morality is NEVER objectiveç it varies from place to place and is constantly evolving.

Even some of your biblical ınjunctions are now considered to be useless in today's world and according to today's already evolved moral codes. . . .Example ıs the sexist ınjuction that women are not supposed to teach in church or usurp a man's authority.

isn't he right? Morality has evolve!!!
How else do u explain that the society is pushing for legalisation of gay marriage, and we even have gay bishops.

Hahaha.
U then want society to accept a God that condame homosexuality!!!

I am a litle bit confuse here.

Is it only God that says homosexuality is misnoma? Afteral he is not the creator.

Nature seems to have prepared things in two's (not god and no god)

fishes = male and female.
Animal = male and female
insect = male and femal.
Plant = male and female
Human = male and female

hmmmm!
(i think nature is wrong, cruel and wicked = no nature)

so, then, a God that will not accept our evolution (evolve) does not exist.

What will u or can u do? I have evolve

Mr_Anony:
If you claim that morality evolves, then you must prove how it evolves, tell us the stages it has been through, what stage it is at now and what stage it is likely going to evolve into and most importantly, you must state how you know these for sure.

Are you denying the fact that morality is always evolving? A simple reading of the bible shows how our own morality as a people has changed greatly from say the time of Moses. . .During the time of moses for example slavery was acceptable, we even have the god of the bible instructing people how how to sell their daughters into slavery or how to brand slaves. . . .Human morality has evolved so much that slavery is seen as a bad thing today. Morality has no stage, and it is only evolving into what human beings feel will best make their societies better for them. We have moved from where adultery and homosexuality will get you stoned to death to where homosexuality is now acceptable in some societies. . . .Even the death penalty has been abolished in some parts of the world. . .Compare that to back then when violating laws such as picking sticks on the sabath will get you stoned to death. . .Parents no longer stone their kids to death for disobedience now. any parent that tries it will be sent to preson, compare that yo when it was acceptable in the bible at one time. . .If you try out most of the moral codes of the old testament in smost developed parts of the world today you will be locked up in prison. If moses, joshua etc were alive today and did what they did back then, they will be tagged as war criminals. . .Human morality has evolved so much that a black man today is the president of the united states, something that could never happen just 200 years ago. . .

cyrexx:

wrong

i am not attacking christianity but simply to show you the fallacy of your religious assumptions. you cant just define morality with your assumptions and think you are the only one with such rights.

but let me briefly summarise my reply before this degenerates into name calling

i have established a clearly understandable realistic objective basis for morality [/b]in my various earlier posts but you [b]keep denying that i have not because you have some religious assumptions which you expect me to allude to.

i can keep going with you back and forth forever while you are re-stating in slightly different words the same thing that has been effectively addressed earlier in my posts.
this will waste a lot of time and a lot people's patience as repetition is boring and adds little value after the initial insights have been stated.

you call me childish while you are blind to your own childish tenacity of holding on to a fallacious assumptions that has been earlier disproved and shown to hold no water.

until you bring new points that have not been addressed, i dont see any benefit of going back and forth with you on the same points only in slightly different words.

good day

It is unfortunate that you find it hard to use simple logic. look for the meaning of the word objectivity and then compare your definition, then explain to yourself how a consensus of subjectives can possibly make up an objective phenomena. Good day to you too.

truthislight:

isn't he right? Morality has evolve!!!
How else do u explain that the society is pushing for ligalisation of gay marriage, and we even have gay bishops.

Hahaha.
U then want society to accept a God that condame homosexuality!!!

I am a litle bit confuse here.

Is it only God that says homosexuality is abnorma? Afteral he is not the creator.

Nature seems to have prepared things in two's (not god and no god)

fishes = male and female.
Animal = male and female
insect = male and femal.
Plant = male and female
Human = male and female

hmmmm!
(i think nature is wrong, cruel and wicked = no nature)

so, then, a God that will not accept our evolution (evolve) does not exist.

What will u or can u do? I have evolve

The same God that told men to enslave their daughters?. . .The same god that told men to commit genocide?. . .The same god that told men to stone to death their disobedient children?. . .The same God that accepts human sacrifice?. . .The same god that tells men to stone to death people found committing adultery?

What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?. . . .There are many homoisexualy goats, dogs, sheep, baboons etc?. . .Its occurs even in the animals kingdom and is not wrong to me. . .I am not gay but what two adults do behind close doors is no of your business. . .If homosexuality is wrong as stated by the bible then stoning to death of disobedient children is also right, after all the bible talks about it as a god given in junction and even Jesus was condemning the people for not abiding but such a law. . .

Mr_Anony:

It is unfortunate that you find it hard to use simple logic. look for the meaning of the word objectivity and then compare your definition, then explain to yourself how a consensus of subjectives can possibly make up an objective phenomena. Good day to you too.

You have NOT shown how morality is objective, you have only stated so. . .How is morality objective under the christian hypothesis. . . .

same old story.
Ask some of the sexualy promiscuous people what they think of HIV.
there usual answer is always that it does not exist.

We know why they wount want to own up that it exist,
however, that they refuse to accept that HIV exist does not take away the reality that it does exist.

mazaje:

You have NOT shown how morality is objective, you have only stated so. . .How is morality objective under the christian hypothesis. . . .

As a christian My morality is based on God as portrayed by the life of Christ. This is my standard for good and evil. It is irrespective of my feelings.

mazaje:

Are you denying the fact that morality is always evolving? A simple reading of the bible shows how our own morality as a people has changed greatly from say the time of Moses. . .During the time of moses for example slavery was acceptable, we even have the god of the bible instructing people how how to sell their daughters into slavery or how to brand slaves. . . .Human morality has evolved so much that slavery is seen as a bad thing today. Morality has no stage, and it is only evolving into what human beings feel will best make their societies better for them. We have moved from where adultery and homosexuality will get you stoned to death to where homosexuality is now acceptable in some societies. . . .Even the death penalty has been abolished in some parts of the world. . .Compare that to back then when violating laws such as picking sticks on the sabath will get you stoned to death. . .Parents no longer stone their kids to death for disobedience now. any parent that tries it will be sent to preson, compare that yo when it was acceptable in the bible at one time. . .If you try out most of the moral codes of the old testament in smost developed parts of the world today you will be locked up in prison. If moses, joshua etc were alive today and did what they did back then, they will be tagged as war criminals. . .Human morality has evolved so much that a black man today is the president of the united states, something that could never happen just 200 years ago. . .

Not so, You are mistaking morality for legalism. Morality does not evolve, for instance, adultery is morally wrong and will always be whether we decide to punish it or not, it is morally wrong. On the other hand, it is not morally wrong to exceed the speed limit and will never be even if you get arrested for it.

In the bible, the old testament was a covenant of laws and legalism and the new testament was the covenant of grace and conscientiousness. In both cases the nature of God remains the same. It is this nature of God which was perfectly portrayed in the life of Christ that I base my morals on. To go against it is to go against my conscience.

My question to you is what is the basis of your morality?

just an addition to my earlier points which has been largely ignored

This argument that morality must be based on an objective entity like the christian bible commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are totally dependent on a god existing,in this case the christian God Yahweh, when this is not necessarily so. No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from this premise-- doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Mr Anony does in his argument, which goes like this:
Premise 1. If Yahweh do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
Premise 2. Christian objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion. Therefore, Yahweh exist.

Let me make a substitution in his argument to illustrate, this time i hope he sees reality and wont wrongly accuse me of childishness:

Premise 1. If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
Premise 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion. Therefore, humans exist.



Just like Anony's argument, there is no proof for P1 i.e there is no proof whether or not Christian God exists. The argument may look valid, but whether it is verifiable or not is questionable. In the case of his arguments, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and he willfully ignores it, though he cannot defend his own presuppositions that requires him to ignore it.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, just like he does, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans or gods like Yahweh.

Every non-Christian culture, including our pre-christianity Afrcan culture and religion, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not dependent on the christian god Yahweh existing, which a wrong presupposition. Africans have moral codes before Europeans brought christianity, which is just a religion of a Jewish deity. Hindu's have a moral code. Sumerians had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians colonised them. Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists as the only true God and that we received moral values from this particular God. Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims God told him to in order to save them from Satan. Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy. The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn. This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said..(this is what i have been trying in vain to show Mr Anony in other words) Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16).
This Mr Anony cannot deny or justify.

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever God says is right is right--in this case the Christian God Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right. If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good." Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a God.

but i have explained to no effect how true objective morality can come from self-governing rational human beings as is the case with less religious advanced countries who strictly followed the rule of law. and its not that my explanations are not clear or valid. its because the "religious mind" clouds and overshadows the "rational mind"

Mr_Anony:
Wrong. If the purpose of morality is survival, then all living things on every level must have a measure of morality.

The purpose of morality for humans is for their own survival, that is what will make them survive best and live make their society less chaotic. . .

Morality does not have to be in place to create order, to create order you need laws, and these laws must be no respecter of persons i.e. they must be objective. If morality is subjective as you suggest then that means that each person's definition of good and evil varies therefore we can never truly define good and evil hence we can never have a fair legal system.

What are you talking about, Laws are part of morality. . .What is your definition of morality?. . .Morality as defined my dictionary.com means conformity to the rules of right conduct. . .Law are part of morality, you can NOT separate the two. . .Moral code as defined by wikipedia is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The laws being no respecter of persons does not mean that they must be objective. . .When your god was telling people to enslave others or stone to death their disobedient children in the bible he wasn't issuing out an objective law. . .By the way who determine which law is objective and which is subjective. . .In every society the law makers create laws and moral codes of conduct that best satisfies their culture, way of life and their philosophy. . .ALL laws are made by humans through consensus of the law makers which are usually the members of the ruling class or religious leaders like in the past. Gods to NOT make laws but humans, even though humans always ascribe the laws they made to their various gods to make them binding. . .God and evil is relative, it is good to eat pork in Denmark but a very bad thing to eat pork in saudi arabia. . .

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. first you define morality as a rule based on a subjective scale of values and then you go on to try to describe the thing that prohibits murder as rooted in self.( Which self are you referring to here because if individual morality is subjective, some selves will simply not have anything prohibiting murder).
Now after defining murder as an absolute, you go on to state that "morality can never be objective", this line of reasoning does not follow

No, morality is subjective, it has never been objective, murder is not an absolute, there are cases where murder is not seen as a bad thing, when you murder an assailant for example. .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.).

The question about using the bible as a moral guide isn't about whether the bible is followed or not but whether the morality of the bible is objective. When you talk about evolved moral codes, what you are saying is that something that used to be morally wrong can become morally right. I don't know this to be true.
The example you gave in the bible by the way was not a moral law rather a ceremonial law detailing how people should behave in church. It is just like saying that the law that demands that you stand to attention when the national anthem is playing so as to show respect to Nigeria can be defined as a moral law.

I am saying that even in the bible, you see morality evolving, let me give you a few examples. . .initially there was nothing immoral in the eyes of your god with marrying your sister(incest). Abraham married his sister Sarah. . .Later it evolved and was prohibited. . .Nothing wrong with slavery, actually your god was even giving out laws on how to sell your daughter into slavery, how to brand slaves and how to enslave others. . .All moral laws are created by humans , they vary from place to place and are constantly evolving based on consensus, culture and way of life of the people. . .Dominant cultures most times influence the weaker cultures to accept their moral principles after they have invaded them or colonized them. . . Christianity and Islam are good examples.

If you claim that morality evolves, then you must prove how it evolves, tell us the stages it has been through, what stage it is at now and what stage it is likely going to evolve into and most importantly, you must state how you know these for sure.

I have stated that so many times. . .If you try to live by the laws of the old testament in today's world you will be killed or be in prison for the rest of your life. Take slavery for example, humans have come a long way and had to teach themselves that it is wrong to enslave one another. . .Through years of moral evolution humans have know come to understand that life has value and should be preserved and protected at all times. . .We came from people that sacrifice their kids, women, enemies and animals to their various Gods for either a good harvest or when their is a drought. . .Morality is NOT objective. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MIUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . . .

Do you deny that morality is does not evolve and has been the same all through time?. . .Pls show how. . . .

Mr_Anony:

Not so, You are mistaking morality for legalism. Morality does not evolve, for instance, adultery is morally wrong and will always be whether we decide to punish it or not, it is morally wrong. On the other hand, it is not morally wrong to exceed the speed limit and will never be even if you get arrested for it.

In the bible, the old testament was a covenant of laws and legalism and the new testament was the covenant of grace and conscientiousness. In both cases the nature of God remains the same. It is this nature of God which was perfectly portrayed in the life of Christ that I base my morals on. To go against it is to go against my conscience.

My question to you is what is the basis of your morality?

Legality is a part of morality. . I have given you a dictionary definition of morality and it includes legality. . .What about homosexuality?. . .Is it morally wrong?. . .It is morally wrong to exceed the speed limit because the law of the land says it is, violating is is violating the moral code of the land, so it is morally wrong. . .Now you have gone into the religious brouhaha that makes everything senseless. . .ALL the laws and moral codes of conducts in the old testament wre the moral codes of that time, same as that of the new testament. The religious things to do morally according to the new testament is for women not to speak in public where men are and for then never to usurp the power of a man. . .In today's word we consider that to be sexist and morally wrong. If a person slaps you according to Jesus the moral thing to do is to turn the other check, if he takes you cloth you give him your jacket. . .Some of the new testament laws are pacifist, but we consider some of them to be immoral in today's world. . .

What else is the basis of my morality apart from society?. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . .

mazaje:

Legality is a part of morality. . I have given you a dictionary definition of morality and it includes legality. . .What about homosexuality?. . .Is it morally wrong?. . .It is morally wrong to exceed the speed limit because the law of the land says it is, violating is is violating the moral code of the land, so it is morally wrong. . .Now you have gone into the religious brouhaha that makes everything senseless. . .ALL the laws and moral codes of conducts in the old testament wre the moral codes of that time, same as that of the new testament. The religious things to do morally according to the new testament is for women not to speak in public where men are and for then never to usurp the power of a man. . .In today's word we consider that to be sexist and morally wrong. If a person slaps you according to Jesus the moral thing to do is to turn the other check, if he takes you cloth you give him your jacket. . .Some of the new testament laws are pacifist, but we consider some of them to be immoral in today's world. . .

What else is the basis of my morality apart from society?. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . .

while i agree that morality is ever evolving, I do feel the need to urge you not to promote fallacies & assumptions regarding the bible. Nowhere did the bible say that women should not speak in public or hold authority over men. The bible passage you refer to was commanded strictly on spiritual matters & that women are forbidden to hold spiritual authority over men, it has nothing to do with secular values or organizations. I assume you are not a christian (or you don't even believe in god), as a result you are entitled to oppose or misrepresent it's messages and meanings.

okeyxyz:

while i agree that morality is ever evolving, I do feel the need to urge you not to promote fallacies & assumptions regarding the bible. Nowhere did the bible say that women should not speak in public or hold authority over men. The bible passage you refer to was commanded strictly on spiritual matters & that women are forbidden to hold spiritual authority over men, it has nothing to do with secular values or organizations. I assume you are not a christian (or you don't even believe in god), as a result you are entitled to oppose or misrepresent it's messages and meanings.

Pls show me where the highlighted part is written in the bible? Are you adding to the bible?. . .

mazaje:

Pls show me where the highlighted part is written in the bible? Are you adding to the bible?. . .

pls show me the bible passages you referred to, on which i attempted to correct you...

okeyxyz:

pls show me the bible passages you referred to, on which i attempted to correct you...

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in thechurches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to besubmissive, as the law also says. Andif they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; forit is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originallyfrom you? Or was it you only that it reached?

Clearly women are not supposed to speak in church or teach men in church. . . .

1 Timothy 2:1-15Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not withbraided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

In today's world this injunction is considered as sexist and has no place in the civilized world. . .

^^^
Are you inferring that the above contradicts my earlier position?? No, it doesn't and I quote myself again:

okeyxy: The bible passage you refer to was commanded strictly on spiritual matters & that women are forbidden to hold spiritual authority over men

mazaje: In today's world this injunction is considered as sexist and has no place in the civilized world. . .

It doesn't matter what "today's world injunction" thinks, Secular values have always been different & separate from religious values. just as i will not support imposing religious values on secular organizations, I also urge you not to impose secular values on religious organizations. simples!

^^

Roger. . .

Let me clarify some definitions for you, so we are on the same page:
Morality: A system for distinguishing between what is good and what is evil.
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour (oxford dictionary)
Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). (wikipedia)

Objectivity: The quality of impartiality and neutrality whereby facts are clearly defined irrespective of personal perceptions or bias. The opposite of subjectivity.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing fact e.g. historians try to be objective and impartial (oxford dictionary)

Objective Morality: This says that there is a set standard for what is good and what is evil i.e. morality is set e.g. and evil behavior will be evil in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by individuals also a good behavior will be good in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by the individuals.

Now i will go on to say that objectivity is the only way we can know anything for sure. To claim that morality is not objective is to claim that we cannot know for sure that something is good or that something is evil. If this is true, then what we are left with is chaos since good and evil become meaningless.

mazaje:

Legality is a part of morality. . I have given you a dictionary definition of morality and it includes legality. . .

Just to note a quick point; the definitions you used were inadequate.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. dictionary.com (this alludes to an existing right i.e the quality of being moral. But remember our problem is differentiating between right and wrong) Next you skipped wikipedia's definition of morality itself and defined moral code instead (they are not the exact same thing).
Legality comes from morality but this does not automatically imply that all laws are moral. for instance if I say the dress code for my party is red jackets, it is a law as far as my party is concerned. if you turn up with a blue jacket, you have broken a ceremonial law and not a moral law. wearing a blue jacket is neither good nor evil in itself. It doesn't matter if the penalty for wearing a blue jacket to my party is death.
On the other hand if you came to my party and stabbed the DJ to death for no apparent reason, you have broken a moral law. It doesn't matter whether or not I clearly stated as one of the rules of the party "don't stab the DJ". It doesn't matter if I cheer wildly and give you a crown of gold or murdering the DJ.

What about homosexuality?. . .Is it morally wrong?. . .

In a christian worldview, homosexuality is wrong because lustfulness and any sex outside marriage is morally wrong

It is morally wrong to exceed the speed limit because the law of the land says it is, violating is is violating the moral code of the land, so it is morally wrong. .

So in other words, whatever speed the law of the land chooses, the law of the land is always right? (this is contradicting your argument because according to you morality is not objective and it changes. How then can any law always be right? How can we be sure that the moral code of the land is right in the first place? How can we be sure that breaking such a law is definitely morally wrong?)

.Now you have gone into the religious brouhaha that makes everything senseless. . .ALL the laws and moral codes of conducts in the old testament wre the moral codes of that time, same as that of the new testament. The religious things to do morally according to the new testament is for women not to speak in public where men are and for then never to usurp the power of a man. . .In today's word we consider that to be sexist and morally wrong. If a person slaps you according to Jesus the moral thing to do is to turn the other check, if he takes you cloth you give him your jacket. . .Some of the new testament laws are pacifist, but we consider some of them to be immoral in today's world. . .

You are judging my worldview based on yours. I have told you that there is a difference between a moral law and a ceremonial/circumstantial law. You claim morality is subjective and ever evolving but when pressed to define exactly what is morally wrong or right, you are finding it difficult and resorting to telling me that laws which I have not defined as moral are moral laws. What I have provided for you is a standard by which you can define morals.
You obviously consider some things right and others wrong however you have not provided a basis by which your considerations may be validated.

What else is the basis of my morality apart from society?. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . .

I don't agree with you. I do not agree that any moral principles are created by man. I believe we are born with our morality or conscience. Studies have shown that babies as young as six months exhibit signs of having a moral compass. Check the links below;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275892/Were-born-moral-Babies-tell-good-evil-months.html

By saying that you base your morality on society, you are in other words saying that you cannot as result judge if any society is good or bad irrespective of what they do. For instance for an Nazi living in Germany of 1939, killing Jews is morally right and you don't have the right to condemn it as evil because he too gets his morals from his society as you do yours. Besides how can your society be right or wrong if morality is truly subjective? i.e. if you decide to break societal laws you are right in your own eyes and your society is also right in it's eyes therefore your societal laws can never be fair but can only always be oppressive. this is also right (or wrong depending on who is observing).
Nothing can be both morally wrong and right at the same time else the concept of morality becomes meaningless.

cyrexx: just an addition to my earlier points which has been largely ignored

This argument that morality must be based on an objective entity like the christian bible commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are totally dependent on a god existing,in this case the christian God Yahweh, when this is not necessarily so. No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from this premise-- doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Mr Anony does in his argument, which goes like this:
Premise 1. If Yahweh do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
Premise 2. Christian objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion. Therefore, Yahweh exist.

Let me make a substitution in his argument to illustrate, this time i hope he sees reality and wont wrongly accuse me of childishness:

Premise 1. If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
Premise 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion. Therefore, humans exist.



Just like Anony's argument, there is no proof for P1 i.e there is no proof whether or not Christian God exists. The argument may look valid, but whether it is verifiable or not is questionable. In the case of his arguments, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and he willfully ignores it, though he cannot defend his own presuppositions that requires him to ignore it.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, just like he does, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans or gods like Yahweh.

Every non-Christian culture, including our pre-christianity Afrcan culture and religion, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not dependent on the christian god Yahweh existing, which a wrong presupposition. Africans have moral codes before Europeans brought christianity, which is just a religion of a Jewish deity. Hindu's have a moral code. Sumerians had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians colonised them. Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists as the only true God and that we received moral values from this particular God. Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims God told him to in order to save them from Satan. Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy. The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn. This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said..(this is what i have been trying in vain to show Mr Anony in other words) Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16).
This Mr Anony cannot deny or justify.

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever God says is right is right--in this case the Christian God Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right. If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good." Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a God.

but i have explained to no effect how true objective morality can come from self-governing rational human beings as is the case with less religious advanced countries who strictly followed the rule of law. and its not that my explanations are not clear or valid. its because the "religious mind" clouds and overshadows the "rational mind"

My friend you have completely missed the point of our little debate, I have not committed the fallacy of necessity.

The problem presented to us is "What is Good?" not "What is God?"

Here is my argument (notice I am in no way trying to prove God's existence, I take it as a given. In this case, even if God were a fictional character, my argument would still be valid, what matters here is that God has definite characteristics from which we can now proceed to judge morality):

Premise 1: If good and evil exist, then there must be a standard by which they can be Identified
Premise 2: The nature of God as defined in the bible is definitely good
Conclusion : I will use the the nature of God as defined by the bible as an objective standard for good and evil

Your argument on the other hand appears thus to me (notice how premise 2 doesn't tally with your conclusion, your standard for morality has no definite characteristics by which we can judge morality)

Premise 1: If good and evil exist, then there must be a standard by which they can be Identified
Premise 2: Goodness is the general well-being of man. It is a range of variables subjective to each man.
Conclusion: I will use the general well-being of man as an objective standard for good and evil

We are trying to define what good is but you seem to be saying good varies and good defines good. This is a meaningless statement.

I'll give you an analogy:
Assuming we were arguing over the length of two lines. "Which is longer between line A and line B?"
I pull out my ruler and measure the two lines and then come to the conclusion that line A is longer than line B.
You on the other hand refuses to use a ruler but you take a poll of 100 people before coming to your conclusion.
I contest that your method is not objective and hence cannot possibly give you an accurate answer.
You retort by saying that my ruler was calibrated in centimeters while other rulers are calibrated in inches
It is inconsequential what my ruler is calibrated in or who invented my ruler. What matters is that it can serve as an objective standard.

You must first provide an objective method before you can criticize the details of my method.