When talking about unintuitive moral stuff in religious, I often hear people say "who are you to say what's moral? are you god?". However, this seems to undermine the main argument for moral realism - i.e. the existence of moral intuitions.
It seems to me that if you use "his ways are not our ways" arguments when defending certain doctrines, you are significantly weakening your ability to make moral arguments for the existence of god within that same religious framework.
Thoughts?
I farted
Are we going to keep ignoring the Post of the Thread?
If you can get an atheist to admit morality is real you kinda win the debate
>OH MY JOSHUA ALLAH I WON A DEBATE THAT'S 2-1 LOSERS
it literally shapes the rest of the discussion, if atheists believe in some invisible nonsense like morality they can't prove in any way while theists have actual evidence for God it's over
The problem is the internal logic of religion. Theists are moral relativists when convenient. Most Abrahamic followers wouldn’t allow their daughter’s rapist to marry her, but that’s exactly what the OT says to do. And even though Jesus makes it clear that whoever breaks the laws in the OT shall be the least in heaven, Christians will go “LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT’S THE OLD TESTAMENT I DONT HAVE TO DO SHIT”
>Most Abrahamic followers wouldn’t allow their daughter’s rapist to marry her, but that’s exactly what the OT says to do.
In the case of israelites, yes they're cooked because they are supposed to follow the Law
In the case of Christians and Muslims, both religions are entirely based on the doctrine that the Law of the israelites is for the israelites, not Gentiles.
>Christians will go “LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT’S THE OLD TESTAMENT I DONT HAVE TO DO SHIT”
Well, yeah, that's the entire point of Christ's fulfillment of the Law, that we are made free from it by Him obeying the Law perfectly. So that we no longer have to, since if we were to be judged by the Law, not a single human being would pass, all of us would be condemned. And St. Paul speaks against trying to follow the Law still, calling those who attempt it Judaizers, since by following the Law, you're basically saying that you don't trust in Jesus and His gift of salvation.
Maybe in your gross paradigm of subjectivism, which we reject thoroughly.
Fascinating that you completely ignore Jesus in favor of Paul. Jesus literally said that he did not come to abolish the law, that you must be more righteous than the Pharisees, that the bad trees that produce bad fruit will be thrown into the fire, etc. etc. This is embarrassing. This is the type of moral relativism cope I was talking about.
>Jesus literally said that he did not come to abolish the law,
I know, He said He came to fulfill it, what do you think that means?
>that you must be more righteous than the Pharisees,
I know, that's what we must be, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will, and we will all fail miserably, so God gave is an easier path to Heaven, since the actual path of righteousness is too hard.
> I know, He said He came to fulfill it, what do you think that means?
What do you think it means that he did not come to abolish it? Why would he even say that if he wanted to communicate that you don’t have to follow the law?
>What do you think it means that he did not come to abolish it?
That He didn't come to overthrow them or make them invalid, thus claiming that they were wrong, which would be blasphemy of the highest caliber.
>Why would he even say that if he wanted to communicate that you don’t have to follow the law?
Because the Law is still valid, He said it so that people didn't mistake what He came to do, because as we know a lot of people have mistakenly concluded that that's what He came to do.
>May it be, in your own unattractive parable-showing of lesser-throwing-ism, which we back-throw meticulously.
>Maybe in your gross paradigm of subjectivism, which we reject thoroughly
I am subjective when lost, and objective when the way is clear.
The word must be made flesh so that the abstract can be paralleled and grounded. This is to avoid assigning worth to the Lords definitions in vanity.
You're still not addressing the topic of my post. If you don't understand it, I can try to make it easier for you.
The moral argument for the existence of god goes something like this:
P1: If moral realism is true, god exists.
P2: Moral realism is true.
C: God exists.
Now ignore premise 1 and focus on premise 2. The main arguments for moral realism are based on moral intuitions. If I accept a different argument which undermines moral intuitions, I will find it less likely to accept an argument which depends on them. In other words, "his ways are not our ways" undermines the arguments for moral realism which in turn undermines premise 2 of the moral argument for the existence of god.
yeah you can make up scenarios that never happened if you want sure
What scenarios are you talking about?
the one presented here
I don't know what you mean by "scenario". I presented a series of arguments.
>invisible nonsense
We don't think that.
Morality is part of culture, it is transmitted and enforced by peers and is thus ultimately partially subjective. What is (mostly) universal is the ability to be empathic, and it is through empathy that we can formulate morals, codes of behavior, that benefit the collective's shared interests.
Morality has always been collective. It exists through people not through itself, same as language.
>Morality is part of culture-
So it's not objective, got it. Some cultures are perfectly fine with child marriage, some cultures are fine with genital mutilation, some cultures are fine with eating dogs, some cultures are fine with wife beating, some cultures are fine with honor killings, so on and so forth.
Are you saying you'd fold to the morality of a different society if you were to move to a different country? If so it means you have no motal principles whatsoever.
I'd be one against many.
I'm either enforcing my ways or get "beaten down" into accepting theirs with my will to fight crushed through whatever means, physical or not. The latter scenario more likely. No matter what I'll be seen as an "intruder", "deviant" or "dissident". A "threat" even. No matter how much strength I put in defending my principles.
That's how it has always been.
Do you accept that as a valid way to establish morals?
Peer pressure has always been the way. If you can't convince them you're not getting through it.
That why ethics are more viable than morals, they attempt to establish a science thus appeal universally.
>What is (mostly) universal is the ability to be empathic, and it is through empathy that we can formulate morals
Why do we necessarily have to formulate morals through empathy?
How can you tell how others feel, what others want and what they truly need and compairing those to yourself and your owns otherwise?
You seem to not have understood my question, I didn't ask why you need empathy to establish morality through empathy, I asked why do you necessarily have to use morality at all to establish morals?
>others want and what they truly need
I can think of plently of examples where people need something, but want something else, or don't know what they and and/or need, or are stubborn.
>why do you necessarily have to use morality at all to establish morals
We need to keep expanding. The universe is infinite, but infinity is a hallucination that we can never touch. We must keep expanding. The more we expand, the closer we get to God, but we will never reach perfection. 3.14 is good enough, but don't think that 2 or 4 will give a better result.
>We need to keep expanding.
Why? There are a lot of arguments out there for why we should actually slow the f down.
>we should actually slow the f down
Agreed. 3.14 is good enough, but don't think that 2 or 4 will give a better result.
>it's not invisible nonsense
>it's just made up and we enforce this made up dogma just because ok?
Atheism everybody
>language is invisible nonsense
???
We enforce it to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, especially the kind that cannot simply be discouraged by laws and legal punishments.
>morality comes from a code of laws set down in a holy book from thousands of years ago
>those laws definitely didn't come from an oral tradition reaching back even further and weren't intended to be a reflection of the norms and expectations of the societies that existed at the time
>Morality is part of culture, it is transmitted and enforced by peers
Embarassing. It's partially innate, instinctual moral sense and the rest is solutions to problems. You probably also believe Black folk aren't born stupid.
There is no such thing as instinctual moral sense. You are just calling your instincts "moral".
And?
>just calling your instincts "moral"
Yes. Morality is genetic
brainlet
We dont think morality is an extra-dimensional being, they’re rules not too unlike rules in games
Thus, they can be changed at will. Just like this anon conceded here:
>Thus, they can be changed at will
Yup. That applies to everyone.
Don’t pretend you follow the same moral code as Christians in the year 60 chief
>Don’t pretend you follow the same moral code as Christians in the year 60 chief
We have the New Testament and the Didache, if one wants to follow the moral code of Christians in the year 60, they're perfectly capable of doing so.
And yet they don’t.
Yeah you’re chronically online if you think there isn’t a general consensus within cultures whether that was right or wrong.
>And yet they don’t.
Assuming that's true (I don't, plenty of Christians actually live their principles) what would that have to do with the original point? Christian morals and ethics have been the same since its inception, it's their interpretation that changes and evolves.
>Yeah you’re chronically online if you think there isn’t a general consensus within cultures whether that was right or wrong.
Not my point. It has nothing to do with the specifics.
There merely being conflicts (including peaceful disagreement) between people about how to thrive, is my point
Seems like great evidence that people do not agree on what it means to thrive
Are you a bot? This doesn't address the topic of my post.
Atheists are objectively more moral, have better life outcomes, and higher human capital though. Religiosity is associated with antisocial behaviour and poor quality human capital globally.
>Atheists are objectively more moral
It is ontologically impossible for atheists to be moral since atheism rejects the existence of objective morality, all you do, according to your own paradigm, is follow your conscience, wherever it leads you and in accordance with your current mood.
Most atheist philosophers believe that morality is objective.
And? Most people believe God exists, do you accept that as a valid argument for God?
Yes, because shared definition is whatever we agree on.
You're kinda missing the point. Your claim was that atheists reject objective morality. I provided a counterexample to that.
>Your claim was that atheists reject objective morality.
No, I never said this, I said that atheism itself rejects the notion of objective morality, whatever atheists believe is besides the point, they can believe their paradigm allows for objective morality all they want, doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
>they can believe their paradigm allows for objective morality all they want, doesn't change the fact that they are wrong
Do you have a single reason for thinking that they're wrong?
>Do you have a single reason for thinking that they're wrong?
Yes, there is nothing in atheism that informs us that objective morality exists.
There's also nothing about the claim "Napoleon lost at Waterloo" that informs us that objective morality exists. I don't see your point. You need to give an actual argument for why atheism would be inconsistent with the existence of objective morality.
>You need to give an actual argument for why atheism would be inconsistent with the existence of objective morality.
Actually it's you who has to show how atheism is capable of producing objective morality. The burden is on you.
I'm just going to assume you don't have an argument then.
I already told you my argument, atheism is incapable of producing objective morality.
All you've done is just assert your view. That's not what an argument is. I want a list of premises followed by a conclusion.
Theorycel babble not reflected in any data anywhere.
Can you define objective morality for me?
Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion.
Not him, but what do you mean by right and wrong?
What do you think it means?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
>right and wrong
The objective for us to thrive is correct. The objective for us to suffer and die, is incorrect.
What does it mean for an objective to be correct or incorrect?
>correct or incorrect?
Correct is co-erection.
In-correct is a lack of co-erection. That which is not created in the spirit of us os incorrect.
Correct action is together-guided
That which is incorrect is not-together-guided.
That which is correct, is guided by us. That which is incorrect is not guided by the holy spirit (the concept of us), but is in contrast, guided by selfishness.
I don't subject myself to ants. I subject myself to higher powers. Higher powers are complex symbiotic cultures of life.
Rise up.
Grow.
>Correct is co-erection.
I'm so co-erect right now, you have no idea.
I'm co-erected from reading
Why?
And what do you mean by "thrive"? Because a lot of people have very different views about what it means to thrive.
I don’t think they do. I don’t think you get out enough if you think everyone’s definition of thriving is different.
The German people got it a bit too cramped to thrive, so I'm just gonna make some room around us
To some people thriving means to worship Allah, to others it's material prosperity, others to reach enlightenment, others to be a warrior, others to submit to Christ, others to have lots of sex, others to advance science, others to establish communism.
Many different definitions.
>Why?
If your objective is death. You don't need a mental framework. Just go and die. The purpose for us talking to eachother is to grow.
>And what do you mean by "thrive"?
Take a hold of what belongs to our joined spirit, together.
>Because a lot of people have very different views about what it means to thrive.
Relate your abstract understanding of it to them in the flesh. Act it out with them, and they will experience it with you, and then there will not be a missunderstanding. Find semantic resonance with the code you transmit, and relate it back to reality, to achieve a result. If you know where you are going, you have an objective. If you are lost, subject yourself to a neighbor you trust.
What meaning does an act being right or wrong have without considering the effects an act has on others?
Are you a consequentialist?
Sure, why not?
Well consecuentialism is just one theory of ethics among others, and not everyone subscribes to it, so your previous question doesn't need to be answered.
>objective morality
The objective to grow.
Like the way a tomato grows?
it defines itself both of those words mean what they say. What problem could you possibly have? They don't suddenly lose their meaning when combined
Atheism is associated with being a troony and an impotent dead end, mormons have much better outcomes.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/the-eugenic-effect-of-religiousness
>When talking about unintuitive moral stuff in religious, I often hear people say "who are you to say what's moral? are you god?". However, this seems to undermine the main argument for moral realism - i.e. the existence of moral intuitions.
Those moral intuitions exist because they were created by God. Just like the laws of physics, they don't exist on their own, they exist because God has established them.
> For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:12-16
>still not a single person addressed the point made in the op
It's all so tiresome...
I just did:
That does not address the point. It's like you saw the word "morality" and impulsively typed out something that deals with the concept of "morality" but not the problem presented in the op.
>That does not address the point.
Yes it does. Just because sometimes moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't feel good. This is a ridiculous objection.
>Just because sometimes moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist.
That was not an argument I made. What you are doing is offering a defense (i.e. negative argument), but what I'm talking about is a positive argument - the argument for moral realism on the basis of moral intuitions.
>the argument for moral realism on the basis of moral intuitions.
I already told you, sometimes those moral intutions are correct, sometimes they aren't, when they are in accordance with objective morality, they are correct. Thus, just because God might command us to do something that we don't want to do doesn't negate objective morality.
Are you a presuppositionalist?
Nope, you threw a callenge at the moral argument for God, I just threw it back at you.
Your argument is a fair defense if you were already basing the existence of god on a different argument, but defense style arguments don't really work well as a support for the main point of the argument that you're putting forward. Do you want me to give an example of that?
Since you were the only one actually engaging with my argument, I'll give the example.
Sue is arguing that someone broke into her house because the lock is scratched. However, she is also saying in an unrelated argument that she knows her husband drinks because he scratches the lock when getting home after a night out. It seems like the second argument weakens the first one - after all, the scratches on the lock could be from her husband.
A "defense" argument could be that perhaps her husband does scratch the lock, but not this time - this time it was some stranger who broke into the house. This is of course a live possibility, but the argument for a stranger having broken into the house is still weakened.
Sure, I'm perfectly happy acknowledging that I'm providing a defense from the position I'm already in, I don't have a problem with that.
But I'd say that atheists have the bigger problem of not even being able to produce objective morality.
And that has nothing to do with the topic I raised.
>that has nothing to do with the topic I raised
What's the objective of the topic you raised? If it's moral, then it will expand, and others will subject themselves to it.
I don't deal with schizotalk.
How can you explain a paradigm without splitting a pair, and showing their relationship?
Objectivity is a shield to block what is thrown at you.
As above, so below. Every kingdom that does not see me, will not be known by me. In such s kingdom, I am a parasite. When that kingdom finally finds me, it will either expell me, or absorb me. If it absorbs me, I am lifted up, and I have found my objective. If it expels me, then it was not The Kingdom I was looking for, and I am not a subject of its objectives, which are mortal, and imperfect. I seek morality, and morality seeks me.
Meditate on your objectives, and include others in your design. Say to yourself. "We", instead of "Me". Thus, "not the will of Me be done", but "the will of You be done".
When you and I are the same, then you are acting morally.
>existence of moral intuitions
Those are just things that were taught to you when you were little by your parents and surrounding culture.
What morals would some fricking caveman 100 000 years ago have?
Don't belittle our ancestors like that.
I'm sure tribal populations would have their own cultures and associated rules of conduct.
Look at our ape cousins. They teach their youth how to behave.
Don’t kill steal, cheat or lie. They surely had customs and taboos like every other culture ever
Sure those are easy.
But if morality is objective. There's an objective fact of stuff like in-vitro fertilization being moral or not.
How you go about figuring out if it's moral to download a videogame from a developer than went defunct 15 years ago on a p2p file sharing site?
It just seems fricking silly to me, to think that there IS a fact of these matters, being moral or not.
Thinking that there's a fact of the matter about whether you should/should not do those kinds of things seems much less silly compared to thinking that there's just no fact of the matter about whether you should torture babies for fun. It's somewhat unreasonable to bite the bullet on that view simply to avoid having to grapple with the controversial moral questions.
>Don’t kill steal, cheat or lie.
Yeah, a society where the biggest cause of male death was violent trauma is def all about that.
>Yeah, a society where the biggest cause of male death was violent trauma is def all about that.
What is warfare between groups
>moral intuition
I just think you need to be giant moron, to think moral realism is a better explanation for why we have moral intuitions, rather than a mundane explanation, like human biology
I don't even understand what it would mean for something to be "wrong", if literally no one cares about it
I would like to say it's immoral for me to peep on my neighbor while she changes bras after spilling milk on them
Even though it doesn't hurt anyone (I firmly deny that it hurts myself)
Therefor, consequentialism is unsatisfactory for me. Same with wellbeing/harm theories of morality.
Clearly consequences plays a PART of morality, but it's not the whole thing
>I would like to say it's immoral for me to peep on my neighbor while she changes bras after spilling milk on them
Virtue ethics answers that satisfactorily I think.
But then you have to define what is virtuous and what isn't.
Ok, and? People overcomplicate this shit imo. I think reification is the word? There's no reason why you must treat morality as something more than, say, a similar sort of thing as what is being passed on when a boy asks his grandpa for dating advice.
>Ok, and?
And people have very different definitions about what is virtuous and what isn't. So your method doesn't work.
There's no reason why you must treat morality as something more than, say, a similar sort of thing as what is being passed on when a boy asks his grandpa for dating advice.
Dating advice has changed quite alot over the past few decades. So your similarity doesn't work.
Nah, it totally works. Virtue ethics isn't conceived as some "words from above" type of shit, it's a trial and error system for good living.
And people have come to very different conclusions about what is "good living". What might be good living today is bound to change in a 100 years from now, just as it has changed from a 100 years ago.
And? I said that it's a trial and error system. You're going back to the autistic reification thing when I said that virtue ethics is precisely not that.
Imagine that you're on your death bed and your son is asking you to impart some advice to your grandson. You look at the ceiling for a while, then stare into your grandson's eyes and say "Boy... I would've loved to tell you to be kind and brave, hard-working and generous, but I can't do that because maybe some people a hundred years from now will think differ-ACK". Don't you think that would be moronic?
>good living.
Peeping on my neighbor sloshing all over the place, is the PEAK of good living
I still want to say it's immoral
>Dating advice has changed quite alot over the past few decades.
You think moral values have not?
Your neighbour could be your mother, sister, wife or daughter getting peeped on by another man.
You wouldn't like that, would you?
If he has none of these then it isn't his problem.
>muh intuition
When I was like 10yo and started catechism, from my first reading of genesis I deducted same conclussion as gnosticism.
Takes a 10yo to unleash 2000 years of asshurt.
Besides, your position is a larp, intuitive morality isn't fricking real because we have like 7gorillon religions, hinduism based on the intuition of the rishis for example, that disagree.
Serious moral disagreement is thing
I believe that often people have sincere disagreement based on their moral intuitions being different
How does this factor in? For people who take moral intuitions as evidence of moral realism, I mean
Does the theory of moral intuition predict that, sometimes, people will intuit wrong? Why would they do that, how does it work?
If, IF, there is objective morality, you measure your moral intuitions by it.
Like, are there even any reasons as to why we should think our intuitions aligns with the objective moral facts? More often than not
For all I know, the moral things to do could be something unknown to humans
there are a variety of factors at play in moral arguments people struggle to grasp the full picture and consequences, gather up all the facts etc. Things might be morally neutral but could lead to immoral consequences in the future or things could be immoral in isolation but save us from greater immoral acts, we couldn't have a discussion or arguments without killing each other if there were no points of agreement.
That sounds like consequentialism.
You could have it be an objective fact, that in-vitro fertilization is objectively immoral, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't cause bad outcomes in the future.
It's just a fact that it's immoral.
Never going to figure that out by talking to each other, unless you suppose 1 of us have epistemic access to the moral fact, and the other don't.
The disagreement is factual not moral on this one no? We virtually all agree innocent children shouldn't be killed or tossed into the trash. The moral aspect we do all agree on which is why we can have a discussion. The disagreement is whether or not these embryos are children
I'm sure other people will have consequentialist objections to this as well with people failing to reproduce using artificial means to do so as we couldn't possibly know the consequences of messing with evolution in this way. More immediate and I guess personal objections like leaving children in foster homes etc
Now you're just changing my hypothetical.
I tried to make my point with it being immoral, despite not having any of the bad outcomes you listed.
Just suppose that it doesn't harm children, doesn't hurt anyone in the future, etc. It's a hypothetical.
Look, the specifics of the example shouldn't matter. So I probably picked a poor example, because you want to object to it, rather than run with it.
>we couldn't possibly know the consequences of messing with evolution in this way
This is what hallucinations are. We simulate the unknown, and develope an objective reality. A.i. does this, and we must fill in the gaps. We are always growing. 3.14 is good enough, but don't think that 2 and 4 lead to better results. Dig deep if you want to perfect your morality, but don't waste your time with quantum physics if newton serves your purpose.
>you suppose 1 of us have epistemic access to the moral fact, and the other don't.
Isn't that the purpose of language? If you have an epistemic moment with reality, what is the point of my imperfect messages? The imperfect messages are to convey epistemic information to those of us that were not present at the time that your vessel touched reality. How else can I be you. I was not there. I only have the imperfect data you share with me.
I understand what people talking to each other is. That's not my concern.
I don't understand how you access the fact of certain moral truth, that presumably exist outside the natural world. Even in principle.
>I don't understand how you access the fact of certain moral truth, that presumably exist outside the natural world. Even in principle.
We get closer to the fact of solid moral truth through trial, and error. (Judgment and sin).
3.14 is close enough. If you can use pi to get good results, you don't need to dig any deeper. You don't need to access anything more then that. What is your objective?
>how you access
If you don't want to deal with the courts of reality, ask someone with experience, and they will give you advice on how to stay out of court.
Think of all your ancestors who lived and died to gift you with your DNA. This is the sacrifice that was paid so that you could live.
That's one of my concerns. Why should I think my ancestors got the moral facts right?
There's no marker we can observe in reality to figure that out
These are not good methods.
Trial and error? I could be doing all bad things, and have good outcomes come to me. (IE: a successful thief)
Asking someone else? (Why should I think they got it right?)
>the moral facts right
They didn't. That's why your physical body is going to die one day.
>These are not good methods.
They are imperfect, but they are what we have.
>imperfect
Why would you even think they track what is moral at all?
Because we have a shared objective.
A persons objectives are subjective (by definition?)
I don't understand what you think this has to do with tracking moral facts.
I think most of the confusion comes from Christians eliding that there is a double standard for God. Most of them will not use the words "double standard" and will only reluctantly admit that God is not moral by any human standard, but that is the only possible conclusion from scripture and Christian traditions. The reason Christians love to recite panegyrics about how God is glorious, loving, beautiful, wonderful, etc. is to reinforce the double meanings. You are supposed to be able to read that God commanded child sacrifice, mass murder, and cosmetic surgery on baby penises and put it out of your mind because you don't know much about that, but you do know God is glorious, perfect, benevolent, etc. because you have heard it reiterated 1,000 times. Most Abrahamics in the long traditions have all their categories blown out. If you ask them to define good behavior, they'll start flipping through the Bible.
>I think most of the confusion comes from Christians eliding that there is a double standard for God.
There is only one standard, God's.
>Most of them will not use the words "double standard" and will only reluctantly admit that God is not moral by any human standard,
There is no such thing as "human standard". Morality comes from God, not man.
>The reason Christians love to recite panegyrics about how God is glorious, loving, beautiful, wonderful, etc. is to reinforce the double meanings.
We sing that God is glorious, loving, beautiful and wonderful because He is glorious, loving, beautiful and wonderful.
>You are supposed to be able to read that God commanded child sacrifice,
He specifically said to the Israelites that He did not want them to worship Him that way:
>You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Deuteronomy 12:31
>mass murder
God has never murdered anyone, murder is unlawful killing, and all lives are God's to end whenever He sees fit.
>and cosmetic surgery on baby penises
There's nothing wrong with circumcision.
>and put it out of your mind
We don't put it out of our minds, we know that they're not problems.
>If you ask them to define good behavior, they'll start flipping through the Bible.
Our understanding of good comes from Scripture. Are you high?
If God told you to jump of a cliff, should you do it?
Did Jesus jump off of the Temple's roof, even knowing that the angels would catch Him?
I don't know
The answe is no.
>He specifically said to the Israelites that He did not want them to worship Him that way
>Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord.
Exek 20:24-25.
>There's nothing wrong with circumcision.
I don't care about your subjective valuation. If I demanded my sons subincise their sons' penises and cut off their daughters' labia, I would be transgressing most standards of morality. But God can command an equivalent surgery by the same standard, because it is a double standard.
>God has never murdered anyone, murder is unlawful killing, and all lives are God's to end whenever He sees fit.
Yes, because there is a double standard. God can purportedly end any life, and Christians assert that it was necessarily good, because God did it. If you heard I wiped out an entire village in New Guinea because they were all wicked in my eyes, you would judge me as evil from my report alone according to the double standard.
>Our understanding of good comes from Scripture
Yeah, and your scripture comes from hundreds of morons.
I just don't think the claim that there's objective moral facts "floating out there", is very interesting, unless you got a method by which to know them.
BUT - Frankly, all the methods I've ever heard, are silly. Like come on, dudes..
Which is why I don't take moral realism seriously
>Which is why I don't take moral realism seriously
What is your objective?
The method was already given:
Meditate on your objectives, and include others in your design. Say to yourself. "We", instead of "Me". Thus, "not the will of Me be done", but "the will of You be done".
Meditating, using my subjectivity to figure out what's moral, seems perfectly fine if I think morals are subjective
But it seems entirely silly to think my subjectivity is consulting the mind independent moral facts, by way of meditation. Like, why would you ever think that?
>it seems entirely silly
Then don't think that way, unless your objective is to be silly.
Maybe try this. Think, "your subjectivity is consulting the mind, dependent on moral facts, by way of meditation". That is why they are subjects.
So what is your objective?
>what is your objective?
You mean like overall in my life? Right now in this thread?
>You mean like overall in my life?
>Right now in this thread?
What is your overall objective, and how are the objectives of this thread helping you to achieve that objective?
Not interested in this discussion
Why are you not interested in your objectives? Isn't it an important topic?
I like to stay on topic, not let ramblers waste my time
>not let ramblers waste my time
Why would you have an objective that is a waste of time to discuss?
Look, my objective was to have you answer some bullshit about meditation letting you grasp the objective moral facts, floating out there in the platonic shapes or God's mind, or whatever
It's just such weird and annoying behavior, for you to change the topic, and start asking me about my life's objectives.
Rather than justify your silly assertion.
where does that standard come from though? And who is this we?
>where does that standard come from though?
It extends from our shared objective.
>And who is this we?
You and I
Morality is gay, become antinomian
That is why I don't believe in divine command theory and the Old Testament nonsense