Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Nyarlathotep,
That was extremely well-stated, by the way. And I learned something. Thank you.
hehe, thanks!
"Have cake- a God who gives a shit
Eat it too- it to all be proven true.
That is not happening, Love."
---I was explaining that you wanted to have cake (which would be that god gives a shit) AND eat it too (which would be that the Bible is true). You were the one who used that analogy, so I was reusing it.---
I'm sorry, I can't decipher this one... I don't know what the first statement is in reference to, and I don't know what the "it" in the second line is.
"If there is a God, then he created an ant farm, got them riled up to fight each other"
Yeah, I have no idea what this means either... If God exists, why must He have created an ant farm?
---The earth is his ant farm. It's a metaphor.---
"No, when you kill men, women, and children for any god, it is wrong."
Says who? You just told me that the group in power of a particular nation decides morality for that nation. So if a group in power decided to kill a man for their god, on what grounds would it be wrong? Don't they decide?
---I am impressed at how you argue in circles. The people in power decide what code of morality that their nation is going to follow. These things are called laws. We all have them. We also have our internal morality of how we decide we, as a single person, will behave. Religion, like a country, really just depends on where you're born. ---
"Big deal… You think he created you for YOU?"
Absolutely not. I don't even see that in my statement anywhere. The book of Colossians states explicitly that God created everything for Himself.
"WOW. Just WOW. I guess I’m not made in his image. I’d rather lead by example."
I'm not sure what that means either... Your being in the image of God does not mean that you have the authority to do as you please. It rather means that you ought to do as God pleases. And none of that has anything to do with whether or not we owe God our existence or not.
--- IF God did not give us our own choices, then he can't justifiably count us responsible for anything he makes us do. IF God DOES give us our own choices, then we are immediately in power of our own moral code. Which is it?---
"Sadly, I cannot figure out what you mean by a car, and I am very curious. So, I had to ask. I don't get it :P"
Here we agree, haha. No idea what the car is...
Lastly, gotpatience, who is your favorite author and why? (I know, it's random. But humor me.)
I don't think I could pick A favorite. I could tell you that my favorites INCLUDE: Scott Peck, Daniel Quinn, Fredrick Nietzsche, Bertrand Russel, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Socrates (as written of by Plato), as of this moment.
"---I was explaining that you wanted to have cake (which would be that god gives a shit) AND eat it too (which would be that the Bible is true). You were the one who used that analogy, so I was reusing it.---"
But those aren't mutually exclusive statements... I mean, I do think the Bible is true and I do think God cares about people. But I'm not sure why you think they are exclusive.
"---The earth is his ant farm. It's a metaphor.---"
Oh. Well, yeah, if God exists, He created the earth.
"---I am impressed at how you argue in circles. The people in power decide what code of morality that their nation is going to follow. These things are called laws. We all have them. We also have our internal morality of how we decide we, as a single person, will behave. Religion, like a country, really just depends on where you're born. ---"
Let me ask you directly. Suppose the people in charge of your country randomly decided that it's morally right to murder children in the name of their god. Would that action then become right?
"--- IF God did not give us our own choices, then he can't justifiably count us responsible for anything he makes us do. IF God DOES give us our own choices, then we are immediately in power of our own moral code. Which is it?---"
Let me use an analogy. In America, there is a law against stealing. If I steal something, I'm held responsible for my actions and am punished. Does this mean I don't have free choice? Of course not. I have the free will to choose what I want to do, but certain choices put me under the penalty of the law. It would be the same way with God. IF He exists, He has given us laws to enforce and regulate morality, but we retain the choice of breaking them and facing the consequences.
And that's quite the assortment of authors! I wish I had more time for leisure reading. What kinds of stuff are you reading from Socrates?
"What you have described is Divine Command Theory; that what god say is moral is moral. That is a classic, and extremely straightforward example of subjective morality; because if god claims X is wrong today, then it is wrong; and tomorrow he can say X is ok, and then it will be ok."
Ah, I get where you're coming from. Thanks!
I have indeed thought a lot about this. You're partly correct. While God's existence would still imply objective standards from our perspective, since they are placed upon us from a source outside of us, the standards are not objective from the point of view of God. At least not in the same way.
What I would say to this is that the God the Bible presents is first of all consistent with Himself. He does not change. That's explicitly stated in James and Isaiah. So in that sense, He could not alter morality from one day to the next. What He knows to be true of His character will be true forever. Further, the God of the Bible is all-knowing, all-wise, and beneficent to His creatures. This means He wills the best for His creation, and He possesses both an in-depth knowledge of every situation and the perfect wisdom to bring every situation to the beneficial end He desires for us.
None of this is in any way meant to prove God's existence. I feel that was a point of confusion before. This is just saying that IF the God of the Bible exists, then He is a consistent standard by which to judge morality, and, being an all-wise, beneficent God, He is a trustworthy source for how we ought to behave. So yes, in a sense, morality could be said to be subjective since it is not, in fact, a standard outside of God. But since God does not change and is all-wise, the standards that emanate from Him are to us unchanging, beneficial, and good, and in that sense, objective. Not to mention, as said before, He has every power of enforcement at His command. If He exists, then practically, He's the final authority, whether we like Him or not. It's not like we could overthrow Him...
"What I would say to this is that the God the Bible presents is first of all consistent with Himself. He does not change. That's explicitly stated in James and Isaiah."
Actually you're wrong.
There are numerous quotes in the bible claiming that the biblical god is changeable:
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14
The explanation for contradictions in the bible is simple - it was written by men and men are susceptible to mistakes. Well to be more precise, in fact, every holy scripture and every god was made up by men. Made up by men who know very little about the world and something about ruling. Men with very narrow concept of Lord - warmonger, misogynistic, megalomaniac, self-centered, demanding total obedience. Sounds like the biblical god, doesn't it? And when I say men, I don't mean human, I mean male men. The God was male.
The god's laws was made for men, with women somewhere in the background (somewhere between inventory, camels and cattle) - they were mostly giving birth, being raped, killed (especially when they were not virgins), enslaved, and serving men. Well, you couldn't expect any less from misogynistic god, could you?
"Further, the God of the Bible is all-knowing, all-wise, and beneficent to His creatures"
And he didn't foreseen that Satan (yes, the one he made) will tempt Eve and Adam? Well actually maybe he did? So why did he allow it? He knew from the beginning (this all-knowing thing is tricky) first people will be tempted by the snake he created. They have a choice, you say? But god knew what they will choose. And knowing this he still allows Satan to tempt? Imagine a parent who places loaded gun on the center of the room. Imagine he sees his child reaching for it. Imagine the child putting the gun is his mouth and pulling the trigger. And now imagine this parent doing nothing to prevent it. Maybe he likes punishing? He likes making or seeing people suffer? No, of course not - he is The Love. But he also defines what love is. So maybe killing, punishing and making people suffer is god's way of love?
That is objective value - set by god.
'So, you know, usually killing is bad, m'kay? Like it's sin and so on, m'kay? But from 10am till the last of the Canaanites the killing is just fine, I don't mind at all. Well, actually I order you to kill every f*king last one of them. Signed God. Yours Truly.' Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18
God is a perfect excuse to kill other people. To enslave and slaughter. Well you could argue with boss or king or government, but arguing with god? The all-wise, all-knowing etc.? The one who sets the definitions and rules. (usually through mouths of priests - you know, that's the god's way - and you're not supposed to question it, on your knees, bow, etc) You shouldn't question it. No, actually you must not! Or burn in hell (formerly burn on stake).
"None of this is in any way meant to prove God's existence."
Good that you point that out. But doesn't mean that the rest of your statement is pointless? Of course we can argue about the consequences that D&D gods exist, or Batman exists, or Superman. Or any other imaginary person.
"I feel that was a point of confusion before. This is just saying that IF the God of the Bible exists, then He is a consistent standard by which to judge morality, and, being an all-wise, beneficent God, He is a trustworthy source for how we ought to behave. So yes, in a sense, morality could be said to be subjective since it is not, in fact, a standard outside of God. But since God does not change and is all-wise, the standards that emanate from Him are to us unchanging, beneficial, and good, and in that sense, objective. Not to mention, as said before, He has every power of enforcement at His command. If He exists, then practically, He's the final authority, whether we like Him or not. It's not like we could overthrow Him..."
Just make an experiment and place Zeus or Manitou or whatever other than biblical god in the place of your god. Now you can see that this argument of yours can be used as an explanation or excuse for every bul*shit that comes to mind.
Imagine an engineer designing a bridge or a plane based on assumption that there is no gravity. It's just an assumption you know. Don't worry whether it's true or not for now (just put it aside as it is not an issue we're focusing on now), but let's just design a plane or bridge using assumption that there is no gravity. Just imagine bridges light like a feather. Easy to build with just human hands - we could easily connect America and Europe. Imagine planes that don't need engines or even wings to fly. No fumes, no energy needed. So why those people (engineers) are doing this really strange thing and before starting to design or build they check whether their assumption is true or not. It so time-wasting (they could design and produce like hundreds of planes and bridges by the time the would have to spend on confirming the correctness of the assumption). What a waste. Don't you think?
"But since God does not change and is all-wise, the standards that emanate from Him are to us unchanging, beneficial, and good, and in that sense, objective."
The bible is littered with stories about god changing his mind, so who's word should I take: yours or the bible?
"Actually you're wrong.
There are numerous quotes in the bible claiming that the biblical god is changeable:
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14"
"The bible is littered with stories about god changing his mind, so who's word should I take: yours or the bible?"
The issue of God "changing His mind" is often attributed to our understanding of God as He relates to us and our difficulty understanding how He relates to Himself. Some people think about it like this: If I follow the laws of my country, I will be protected and free within that country. If I break the laws of my country, I lose my freedom and I'm punished. The laws didn't necessarily change, but my actions can put me either under the protection or the penalty of the law. Similarly, God unchangingly possesses an attitude of aversion towards sin. So if I sin, it places me in a position under His anger. If I repent, I am placed under His posture of blessing. Since from our perspective, it looks like God changed His mind when we changed ours, the Bible uses that kind of language. Take Nineveh. God stated that the city would be overthrown in 40 days because of their wickedness. That was certainly a true statement, inasmuch as its true that if I steal something, I will go to jail. But God also knew that if they repented, He would spare them. Both were unchangingly true statements. But man alters His position before God through His choices, and receives either the benefits or the punishments that God holds over us.
"Well to be more precise, in fact, every holy scripture and every god was made up by men."
That's a statement you make on faith.
"Men with very narrow concept of Lord - warmonger, misogynistic, megalomaniac, self-centered, demanding total obedience. Sounds like the biblical god, doesn't it? And when I say men, I don't mean human, I mean male men. The God was male."
Um, I see only two ways this sounds like the Biblical God. God is certainly portrayed as making war on His enemies, and He definitely demands total obedience. But He's definitely not self-centered, since the Bible tells us He was willing to lay down His life for the undeserved benefit of others. He's not a megalomaniac, since He doesn't think He's better than He actually is. And He's not misogynistic, since the Bible says in Galatians that there is no distinction before Him between male and female. Also, the God of the Bible is decidedly a Spirit, and so not really a male... He's talked about with a masculine pronoun, but the actual claims of the Bible is that God does not possess a gender.
"And he didn't foreseen that Satan (yes, the one he made) will tempt Eve and Adam? Well actually maybe he did? So why did he allow it? He knew from the beginning (this all-knowing thing is tricky) first people will be tempted by the snake he created. They have a choice, you say? But god knew what they will choose. And knowing this he still allows Satan to tempt?"
The full reasons for God's allowance of Satan are simply not given to us, so I really can't give you as full an answer as I would like. But we do know that God allows all things for His glory and our good. Also, we're told that even before Christ, God was saving men. Abraham for example, believed what God said was true, and was counted as righteous. There has always been opportunity for men to be saved. Now that we have the full revelation of God in Christ, the command is to believe the gospel for our righteousness. The Bible offers us the way to be saved, not the answers to every question we have. I trust one day, I will be able to ask Him for a fuller explanation of these things.
"Imagine a parent who places loaded gun on the center of the room. Imagine he sees his child reaching for it. Imagine the child putting the gun is his mouth and pulling the trigger. And now imagine this parent doing nothing to prevent it. Maybe he likes punishing? He likes making or seeing people suffer? No, of course not - he is The Love. But he also defines what love is. So maybe killing, punishing and making people suffer is god's way of love?"
The best I can answer this is that God clearly communicated the consequences to Adam and Eve before their choice and they possessed everything that they needed to make a proper choice. They had enough knowledge to be fully responsible for their actions. And again, from the very outset, God was working to bring salvation to the human race through His sacrifice. I can't give all of the reasons because I haven't been told. But whatever the reasons may be, according to the Bible, we are under wrath because we are in rebellion against God, and we must now repent and be saved.
Good questions!
"we are under wrath because we are in rebellion against God"
No, no 'we' aren't. Sounds like you have chosen that, but I certainly haven't, ergo, there is no 'we'. Please don't include me in it by use of that word.
ImagoDei - 'The issue of God "changing His mind" is often attributed to our understanding of God as He relates to us and our difficulty understanding how He relates to Himself.'
It matters not what you attribute it to; that fact that it is possible, ends any chance of it being an objective standard. The fact that the bible stories describe this happening---ad nauseum---just makes the whole notion ludicrous.
"No, no 'we' aren't. Sounds like you have chosen that, but I certainly haven't, ergo, there is no 'we'. Please don't include me in it by use of that word."
Just a couple of comments here. First, and this is mainly out of curiosity, why do you think I chose a world where I am under the wrath of an all-powerful, fiercely holy God? Especially One who demands every shred of my devotion and love... What would cause me to choose that?
Second, if I did believe that men are under wrath and must flee to Christ for salvation - and I most certainly do - then I would be the worst human imaginable to not at least express it to you. How could I hold to such a position and not have any desire to warn others?
Third, I'm voicing my beliefs in a discussion. I ought to be able to state things that I believe... I'm certainly not forcing you to agree with any of my claims, but really, you should be able to sit through a claim you don't agree with. I mean people here have been telling me repeatedly that all gods are made up, but I don't tell them stop saying it. That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it, and I sift through it. I have as much a right in a discussion to say "God exists" as you do to say "God is a fiction."
"It matters not what you attribute it to; that fact that it is possible, ends any chance of it being an objective standard. The fact that the bible stories describe this happening---ad nauseum---just makes the whole notion ludicrous."
It matters a great deal what I attribute it to. It's like you didn't even read my full comment... But okay, let's assume that you are correct. Suppose God does change His mind. This is neither an argument for His nonexistence nor indeed for much of anything except one position in Biblical interpretation. I know of some very prominent Biblical theists who maintain that God undergoes changes in His mental states. They would argue that the verses referring to His immutability are in reference to His character, which is consistent forever. God's reactions to things are predictable and unchanging, and He will always do what is right according to His immutable counsel.
And suppose even morals are arbitrarily chosen by God. This is a philosophical statement about morality and prior being. It does nothing undercut my theism. At most, the absolute objectivity of morals might be attacked, but I'm not particularly concerned with all of that. I'm more concerned with whether or not there are things we ought to do or ought not to do by some standard outside of our thoughts or feelings on the matter. IF God exists, that would be true.
"Just a couple of comments here. First, and this is mainly out of curiosity, why do you think I chose a world where I am under the wrath of an all-powerful, fiercely holy God? Especially One who demands every shred of my devotion and love... What would cause me to choose that?"
I have no actual idea why you would do so. I've observed that many people do so because it is what they were taught as children and simply stuck with it in adulthood. That may be the case for you as well.
"Second, if I did believe that men are under wrath and must flee to Christ for salvation - and I most certainly do - then I would be the worst human imaginable to not at least express it to you. How could I hold to such a position and not have any desire to warn others?"
Actually, you would certainly not be the worst human imaginable to me. You hold whatever positions you hold. I find someone telling me that I am under wrath and must submit to their god to avoid to be a completely offensive behavior on their part.
"Third, I'm voicing my beliefs in a discussion. I ought to be able to state things that I believe... I'm certainly not forcing you to agree with any of my claims, but really, you should be able to sit through a claim you don't agree with."
You are stating things you believe. I don't share those beliefs and requested you not include me in them by saying 'we'. I am quite capable of 'sitting through' hearing claims I think are bupkus. I do it multiple times a day, and not just here at AR.
"I mean people here have been telling me repeatedly that all gods are made up, but I don't tell them stop saying it. That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it, and I sift through it. I have as much a right in a discussion to say "God exists" as you do to say "God is a fiction."
I did not, in fact, ask you to stop expressing your belief in you god. I asked you, if you go back and examine my post, to quit saying 'we'. I have zero problem with you saying "I".
"I have no actual idea why you would do so. I've observed that many people do so because it is what they were taught as children and simply stuck with it in adulthood. That may be the case for you as well."
I shall endeavor to explain it then. Imagine a planet where all of the inhabitants are blind. They have no concept of sight whatsoever. One day, one of them wakes up with the ability to see. He runs back to tell everyone else that they've been missing something this whole time, and tries to describe to them what it's like to see the colorful world around him. Naturally, most don't believe him, and one of them states: "I only believe in things we can observe, and there is no observable evidence for things like color. Besides, why would you choose to live in a world where everyone is actually blind and devoid of a sense that would be so crucial? That's offensive."
I guess didn't so much choose to believe it as come to recognize its truth. Like C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I have come to recognize it as the reality we live in, whether its comfortable for us or not. Luckily, reality has the potential to offer us incredible joy if we embrace it, and I can testify that the colors are beautiful.
"Actually, you would certainly not be the worst human imaginable to me. You hold whatever positions you hold. I find someone telling me that I am under wrath and must submit to their god to avoid to be a completely offensive behavior on their part."
I mean it's unfortunate that I offend you... I don't want to. But honestly, if you saw someone driving toward a cliff, I would hope you'd try something to stop them. Much more then, if I believe that you are headed needlessly toward an eternal destruction, I am compelled to speak. God is pleased now to be patient, so while we have the time, I urge you to repent and be saved. Christ has been sacrificed for us, and wrath is averted if we put our faith upon Him and His work.
"You are stating things you believe. I don't share those beliefs and requested you not include me in them by saying 'we'. I am quite capable of 'sitting through' hearing claims I think are bupkus. I do it multiple times a day, and not just here at AR."
You don't seem to understand. I'm not saying that "we" believe it. My personal belief is that without Christ we are all under the wrath of God. To exclude you from that would be to misrepresent my beliefs. How can I be free to state my beliefs if I'm not allowed to say "we"?
ImagoDei - "But okay, let's assume that you are correct. Suppose God does change His mind. This is neither an argument for His nonexistence nor indeed for much of anything except one position in Biblical interpretation."
I agree 100%. I was not trying to attack your position that god is real (at least not in this arguement). However, this is the end of objectivity in this moral system. To paraphrase Plato:
A)Are God's commandments good because they are good?
B)or are these commands good because they were commanded by God?
If A, then objective morality might still be salvageable, but it must come from something other than God (not a very popular opinion among religious people, to be sure).
If B, then we have divine command theory, the death knell of objectivity morality. This is often the 'textbook example' of subjective morality, because it is probability the simplest to understand.
This is why we ridiculed your claims of objective morality from the start; that dog don't hunt.
The only thing left now is for you to start (you have already kind of hinted at this) arguing that when you say objective you are using your own private definition of the word. If you deiced on this course of action, let me give you some advice: put on a back brace and lift with your legs not your back; so you don't hurt yourself moving that goal post around.
"If A, then objective morality might still be salvageable, but it must come from something other than God (not a very popular opinion among religious people, to be sure)."
Actually, from my understanding, there are a great many theologians who believe that there are axiomatic morals that are simply necessary, just as there are certain logical axioms that are always true. I'm not convinced of this...
"The only thing left now is for you to start (you have already kind of hinted at this) arguing that when you say objective you are using your own private definition of the word."
You're correct, my private definition of objectivity is that it implies something outside of us, but not necessarily outside of God. I'm sorry if this caused confusion. I have been consistent with my definition. But if you would like to settle on a good definition, we can do that right now, so we don't have to come back to it. How are we defining objective here? Again, the issue is one of interpretation, and one I don't have a clear stance on, so I'm up for whatever.
I don't think I can explain is better than the following short video. You will notice the argument provided by the character on the left(at least at first) is almost a direct quote of what you have told us. This is no accident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ilZq3R900
Sad to see this thread dwindling. It's been a good read and it's a valuable discussion. Though I would rather read people smarter than I am write about it, I'll take a stab at this.
Imago, for all your superb writing (seriously) you are missing a couple of key points. The most obvious is of course common definitions. 'Objective' is not a difficult term to grasp the common implication of. Most people do not define objective as being from outside ourselves but not outside of (insert deity or whatever here). If isomething is dependent upon the whim of a sentient consciousness, then it is textbook subjective. And that's a part of every reasonable person's definition. I am sure it's part of your definition when not talking about your god.
Which brings me to the next point: special pleading does not hold any water in serious discourse. It is psychologically distressing to read someone of your high intellectual calibre resorting to it.
Lastly, you aren't giving your audience enough credit. You kept thinking that you weren't explaining yourself because you weren't getting the answers you wanted. The truth is we do understand the apparent double standard you were trying to capitalize on. You think it is hypocritical for one to say your god is immoral because it did xyz and then in the next breath say one would actually like xyz to happen. The fatal flaw in this is that we all know we are fallible human beings operating under disparate subjective morals strung together in an ad hoc code of sorts. But you have offered as comparison an infallible being who does no have to rely on limited experience, empathy, and the ever-changing nature of both environment and society, yet still commits crimes we deem morally reprehensible. It's apples and oranges. Your deity as it is imagined is supposed to be held to a higher standard and can't be compared to any person.
You know, I'm not sure any of that made sense. It's late, I'm in a foreign country, I'm a high school drop-out, etc. So don't take it as a personal attack. I'm just trying to keep this conversation going because I enjoyed it.
Pages