Questions on morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I literally edited my post a few seconds before you posted your answer.

Tell yourself what you want. It was a stupid question. I answered it. You changed it.

Originally posted by FMF
Ha ha, yeah sure. and If your god does exist and he tells you that, based on his standards, it is morally right to carry out a genocide, then you will argue that it is morally right to carry it out, and then, if you obey it (your god figure), we will see you and your "moral absolutes" in action.

Seems like a strawman is all you've got in your armory.

The point you still seem to be missing is that if God doesn't exist, nothing is ever always wrong in any case so you have no legitimate complaint apart from 'this does not suit my personal preference'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Seems like a strawman is all you've got in your armory.

No it's not a straw man at all. It's me asking you ~ a person who has actually defended the morality of genocide under supernatural circumstances ~ a question about instructions to carry out genocide from a god that you believe actually does exist ~ who [according to your beliefs] actually does have a track record of instructing his followers to carry out genocide. It's certainly not a "straw man" ~ which is a term that you perhaps do not understand the meaning of.

Originally posted by FMF
No it's not a straw man at all. It's me asking you ~ a person who has actually defended the morality of genocide under supernatural circumstances ~ a question about instructions to carry out genocide from a god that you believe actually does exist ~ who [according to your beliefs] actually does have a track record of instructing his followers to carry out genoci ...[text shortened]... certainly not a "straw man" ~ which is a term that you perhaps do not understand the meaning of.

I believe it is because you are not taking into account the new covenant and you are making the fallacious assumption that I live in old testament times. I already told you God does not contradict himself and in the new testament he commands us to love our enemies. So your strawman doesn't take all of this into account.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe it is because you are not taking into account the new covenant and you are making the fallacious assumption that I live in old testament times.

Erecting your "intellectual" smokescreen of superstitious notions, and then hiding behind it, is only going to work on a fellow superstitious person. I've had a taste of your supposed "moral compass" and you're on a hiding to nothing wittering away about "new" or "old" covenants and the "infinite wisdom" of genocide.

You might as well be Dasa - remember him? - wittering on about people being reincarnated as houseflies or mice, or sonship wittering away about billions upon billions of people being tortured forever for believing different things than him.

It was OK for you to ask me a hypothetical question about your monstrous god figure, but when I ask you one - and root it precisely in the "moral" argument that you attempted to offer - your bottom lip starts to quiver and you're mewling about "fallacious assumptions" and twisting the word "straw man" beyond all conventional meaning.

And you wonder why there is speculation about whether you are still a teenager?

Originally posted by FMF
Erecting your "intellectual" smokescreen of superstitious notions, and then hiding behind it, is only going to work on a fellow superstitious person. I've had a taste of your supposed "moral compass" and you're on a hiding to nothing wittering away about "new" or "old" covenants and the "infinite wisdom" of genocide.

You might as well be Dasa - remember him? ...[text shortened]... onal meaning.

And you wonder why there is speculation about whether you are still a teenager?

When it comes to morality you dear Sir are left with 3 options.

1. develop a moral standard out of your own opinions.
2. adopt the moral standards of society.
3. use a combination of your own opinions and the morals of society.

Other than those three, I don't see any other options for you. So, let's take a look at them.


1. If you develop a moral standard based on your own opinions, then what justifies your opinions as being the right ones? Your opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on your opinions so why should anyone take your moral opinions seriously? And what right do you have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Why isn't anyone else's opinion on morals as valid as yours? Furthermore, if you tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then you are being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on your own subjective opinions. There are clearly problems with deriving morality from one's self.

2. If we go with the second option where you derive your morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. You may respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, you would be saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so?

3. Finally, if you use your own opinions in combination with those of society, then you are subjectively deciding what you think is right and wrong in the society around you. You are judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where you're deriving morality from your own opinions. That's logically befuddled.

So it doesn't seem you have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Since you don't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all you can say is that you don't like the God of Christianity. You can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because you don't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. You only have a subjective opinion. If you then try to impose your opinions on others, you then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.

There are clearly problems with you position, but you clearly don't care. All you have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in your subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while you condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You can read up more about this dilemma you have when you reject God here:
https://carm.org/atheism-moral-problem

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When it comes to morality you dear Sir are left with 3 options.

1. develop a moral standard out of your own opinions.
2. adopt the moral standards of society.
3. use a combination of your own opinions and the morals of society.

Other than those three, I don't see any other options for you. So, let's take a look at them.


1. If you develop a ...[text shortened]... re about this dilemma you have when you reject God here:
https://carm.org/atheism-moral-problem

See my comments, observations and viewpoints here Thread 171350

Originally posted by FMF
See my comments, observations and viewpoints here Thread 171350

The post above is in response to all the comments you have made on morality.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The post above is in response to all the comments you have made on morality.

I read through your long copy paste and it would seem you have not read or you have simply ignored most of the things I've said.

Originally posted by FMF
I read through your long copy paste and it would seem you have not read or you have simply ignored most of the things I've said.

Of course you are going to claim to have addressed all the points I made in another thread like you always do.

It's an old tactic you deploy. Nothing new there. 😴

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you are going to claim to have addressed all the points I made in another thread like you always do.

It's an old tactic you deploy. Nothing new there. 😴

People can judge for themselves. I've read your copy pasted material.

Originally posted by FMF
People can judge for themselves. I've read your copy pasted material.

Obviously you don't have to examine your own position, as long as others think well of you it's all bliss.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Obviously you don't have to examine your own position, as long as others think well of you it's all bliss.

You claimed that I haven't been addressing the claims you have made about morality. I think I have while you think I haven't. I think I have examined my own position while you don't think I have. Fair enough. People can decide for themselves.

Originally posted by FMF
You claimed that I haven't been addressing the claims you have made about morality. I think I have while you think I haven't. I think I have examined my own position while you don't think I have. Fair enough. People can decide for themselves.

Ah so this is all a show to impress people. It's not really about you evaluating your own beliefs, it's all about them, whoever they are. Makes sense now.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ah so this is all a show to impress people. It's not really about you deciding, it's about them, whoever they are. Makes sense now.

I'm pretty sure there are many, many people here ~ I'd hazard a guess that it's the majority ~ who'd think I've got it all wrong about morality [assuming they have read what I've written] and that you have got it right. But it's for them to decide for themselves, not me.