Originally posted by sonship

Moral 'laws' do not have to be absolute to be effective, valuable, or true.

Didn't answer my question yet. What difference does it make what I do to you if there is no Ultimate Governor, no Ultimate Judge for me ?

You'll get over it if I do you dirt. I'm pretty sure. And if you don't? Well, it could be worse. It could be me.
...[text shortened]... y Spirit to live through.

And I will look at you other sentences perhaps in the next post.

"Didn't answer my question yet. What difference does it make what I do to you if there is no Ultimate Governor, no Ultimate Judge for me ?"

again, its disturbing that you think like that. if you have a headache would you take painkillers? if there was no god would you still take painkillers?

Originally posted by sonship

its worrying that you think like that.

One atheist said "Well if you need the Bible to be good to me then by all means use your Bible."

But the point here is that there is no rational basis for good behavior. I may like to be good and feel better to be good. But I also feel better to, say, eat chocolate ice cream as opposed to van ...[text shortened]... , we might do so for awhile though we really don't know rationally why we're obligated to do so.

where have i taken away rationality???? i didnt mention the rational basis because its so obvious that it disturbs me that you need it pointing out.

the rational basis for good behavior depends on the scenario.

you mention food. its rational not to eat too much ice cream because we will grow fat and die. death is bad, we get good feelings from being alive.

being good to each other...is good. we get a little chemical high when we are good and this feels good. being good to each other is encouraged by the body because it helps us survive.........survival is good, its the opposite to death. death is bad.

are you starting to understand how this works or do you need more examples on being human?

Originally posted by sonship

He didn't. Next question.

Next question ? If there is no absolute moral law then it doesn't make any difference what we do. Does it ?

That's the next question. If no God and no transcendent morality what difference does it make what I do to you ?

do you have pets? whats the point of their life? they dont have a god or a soul. so why bother being nice to their owner? why is my dog so loyal, why would it risk its life for me?

Originally posted by sonship

its worrying that you think like that.

One atheist said "Well if you need the Bible to be good to me then by all means use your Bible."

But the point here is that there is no rational basis for good behavior. I may like to be good and feel better to be good. But I also feel better to, say, eat chocolate ice cream as opposed to van ...[text shortened]... , we might do so for awhile though we really don't know rationally why we're obligated to do so.

You keep saying that their is no rational basis for good behaviour.

This is utter and complete [expletive] nonsense.

You don't just get to assert stuff like that. You have to prove it.

Which you can't as it's not true.


Part of the problem is you have absolutely no comprehension of what rationality is or means.

Rationality has 2 parts.

The first part is a quest to hold an accurate as possible model of reality as only an accurate
model of reality can be relied upon for producing reliable predictions of reality and the consequences
of actions. And thus the more accurate the model of reality the more utility and value it has.
This is basically the reason for and value of science, and it is part of rationality.

The second part of rationality is the use of logic and reason ect, to achieve ones goals and desires
as efficiently and reliably as possible.


The two play off each other as having an accurate world view can influence what your goals should
be as part of the world view is knowledge of what best promotes wellbeing and thus what goals would
best achieve that.

Emotions are a vital part of this.

While emotions can get in the way of achieving your goals... Reveal Hidden Content
Emotions are vital for determining what your goals should be. You can't create goals without caring about
anything.

We live in a society of other beings, and our actions impact them, and their actions impact us.

Morality is THE system by which actions are weighed up and rated to determine which best achieve
the wellbeing of the people in that society.

Rationality is THE system that builds accurate models of reality, and of determining how to achieve your
goals and of determining what your goals should be.


Behaviours that lead to lower wellbeing harm you.

Rationality tells you that this is bad, and that morality is the solution.


Rationality absolutely leads to morality. [when done right, do anything wrong and you get wrong results.]


However.

I don't need some bogey man telling me to be good or else.

I have compassion, I have empathy, I care about others... And I have rationality telling me why that's a good thing.

I don't WANT to harm others.

I do WANT to live in a fair and just and free society that promotes wellbeing.


And I, and everyone else, reaps the benefits of such a society in this one life we get.
And if we fail we suffer the consequences in this one life too.


There is no fairy tale being in the afterlife that 'judges' us.

Their is just this reality and what we do in it.

Originally posted by sonship

He didn't. Next question.

Next question ? If there is no absolute moral law then it doesn't make any difference what we do. Does it ?

That's the next question. If no God and no transcendent morality what difference does it make what I do to you ?

If no God and no transcendent morality what difference does it make what I do to you ?

What a bizarre question....

So if hypothetically you are mistaken in your belief that God exists, it makes no difference if I, say, murder all your loved ones while they sleep?

Reality check: the subject of God is irrelevant to determining what makes a difference here. Frankly, it would be a much scarier world if it were the case that the God of your hyper-literal accounts exists...like having a madman at the helm.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Bible is a more versatile book than many of its practitioners realize. There are passages in it that can be used to support almost any position on issues you may wish to take. If you are warlike, you like OT stories of conquest. If you are peaceful, you like Jesus' teachings on meekness and being slow to anger.

If you are a chauvinist, you go with ...[text shortened]... le believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.

Also ironic that Bible believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.

Yes, not only that, but they often claim that God is the only viable source for objective morality. Quite an ironic claim, since 'objective' is usually taken to relate generally to the subject of mind-independence; whereas God represents a mind. I always find it astounding how they claim with a straight face that for morals to be mind-independent they must be sourced constitutively from a divine mind. 🙄

At any rate, I have come to understand that by "objective" morality, what they actually require is that moral truths be unchanging and independent of human beliefs/attitudes. Well, if that's all that is required, then this theist could simply say there are mind-independent moral facts that satisfy this. But that would make God irrelevant to the constitution of morals...hence all the grotesque contortions of theists to try to keep God relevant. It makes for quite a show....

Originally posted by LemonJello

Also ironic that Bible believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.

Yes, not only that, but they often claim that God is the only viable source for objective morality. Quite an ironic claim, since 'objective' is usually taken to relate generally to the subject of mind-independence; wherea ...[text shortened]... the grotesque contortions of theists to try to keep God relevant. It makes for quite a show....

It makes for quite a show....

Case in point: the show that sonship is putting on here. (Munch munch on my popcorn.... )

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you have pets? whats the point of their life? they dont have a god or a soul. so why bother being nice to their owner? why is my dog so loyal, why would it risk its life for me?

What makes you think our pets do not have souls? Of course they have souls and God has given us dominion over them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes you think our pets do not have souls? Of course they have souls and God has given us dominion over them.

Prove it.

Originally posted by LemonJello

It makes for quite a show....

Case in point: the show that sonship is putting on here. (Munch munch on my popcorn.... )

He'll do that in any thread. He'll punish you with 2000 characters of stuff that has little to do with the subject at hand. I have lost the patience to read his posts.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
where have i taken away rationality???? i didnt mention the rational basis because its so obvious that it disturbs me that you need it pointing out.

the rational basis for good behavior depends on the scenario.

you mention food. its rational not to eat too much ice cream because we will grow fat and die. death is bad, we get good feelings from be ...[text shortened]... d.

are you starting to understand how this works or do you need more examples on being human?

One must understand the pros and cons of an action before he can act rationally.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes you think our pets do not have souls? Of course they have souls and God has given us dominion over them.

do all animals have souls?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Prove it.

The proof is in the pudding. Eat it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
One must understand the pros and cons of an action before he can act rationally.

Not actually true. Although it's closer to the truth than you usually get...
So marks for that I suppose.

If you have all the time and resources in the world then yes you should weigh
up all the pros and cons of a choice/action and carefully work out which is best.


However, decisions must often be taken rapidly without all the facts.

This doesn't mean you can't make rational decisions, there are numerous techniques
for coming to the best decision possible without having all the facts.

If you are on a train heading for a ravine and you make it into the cab and find it
empty it's not rational to spend the 3 minutes before you fly into the abyss trying
to find the manual. You punch push pull and switch everything you can find in a systematic
paten till you find the breaks. If you have a time constraint you act based on the information
you have to hand at the time.

And any attempt to gain more information must weigh up the time cost of hunting for the
information against the expected utility of that information.

This is one of the many reasons why it is best to have a broad range of accurate information
in your world view so that if you find yourself in a time dependent scenario you have the best
possible platform from which to make your decision.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The proof is in the pudding. Eat it.

I did already.

I was right.