Phil Robertsons Eloquent Morality Argument

[Kosher Ham]

So no dispute about the morals and Atheists from here on ?

[mistertim]

I have read this thread and followed since last night. If you can show me a post where it states where you needed GOD to teach morals or right from wrong, I will admit my error.

Are you seriously telling me you saw no posts in here where the posters in question said they believed that morality comes directly from god, aka you need god to be moral? Really? Sorry man, at this point I think you're either playing the "show me where x person said this specific phrase in this specific way" game or you're just trolling me (if you are, well done).

[mcsluggo]

I remember now why i didn't like philosophy.... any debate is interesting for about 10 minutes, when you get people's big picture viewpoints, and then it always turns into an impassioned slugfest about the significance of using a comma versus a semicolon  

[Rskins06]

Are you seriously telling me you saw no posts in here where the posters in question said they believed that morality comes directly from god, aka you need god to be moral? Really? Sorry man, at this point I think you're either playing the "show me where x person said this specific phrase in this specific way" game or you're just trolling me (if you are, well done).

No, not trolling you, it was an honest question as I have not seen anyone specifically say you need GOD to teach morals and know right from wrong.

 

What I have read and what I have interpreted are differences of opinion on morals and right from wrong.  Also, most of the discussion doesn't even seem to discuss Phils actual statements and his focus on GODs judgment from a christian perspective and an atheist perspective, not morals.  Has it been implied that morals being taught right from wrong came from GOD, I guess you could take that stance.  Most of the arguments though seemed to be about morality, objective morality, etc.  Maybe we are reading the same things, just interpreting them differently (which happens).

[Kosher Ham]

Are

 

Let it go man. It is futile at this point.

[Kosher Ham]

No, not trolling you, it was an honest question as I have not seen anyone specifically say you need GOD to teach morals and know right from wrong.

 

 

Interesting.

 

You are intentionally being obtuse.

 

"GOD" perhaps was not used as a reference and certainly the Bible (pretty sure it was). We have had this conversation over the years.

A book written by someone other than the person/being... that is a based on a true story thing. I do have a soft spot for those type of stories though.

 

That alone makes it fictional.

 

I have no qualms about how you interpret the book.

My issue is that you and your ilk seemingly try to influence the rest of us to believe in it.

Sometimes uninvited.

 

Personally, I do not care what you believe in and many times find those topics interesting. I have read all of the major books on the topic. End of the day...cool story.

 

Grasp on that fictional part.

[Zguy28]

Are you seriously telling me you saw no posts in here where the posters in question said they believed that morality comes directly from god, aka you need god to be moral? Really? Sorry man, at this point I think you're either playing the "show me where x person said this specific phrase in this specific way" game or you're just trolling me (if you are, well done).

Maybe you haven't been reading yourself? Or you've seen what you wanted to see based on prejudice?

 

Nobody said that atheists can't do moral actions. We are arguing whether morality is objective or subjective. What we have said is that if morals are objective, they must come from God. That doesn't negate the fact that atheists can still do good or right actions. Hopefully that clears up your misconception of the discussion.

[alexey]

...

We are arguing whether morality is objective or subjective. What we have said is that if morals are objective, they must come from God.

...

Lets add another layer here.

Let's separate my preferences, my goals, etc. from my actions. Would you agree that my actions can be an objectively right or an objectively wrong way of achieving my goals?

Then I can say: according to my subjective preferences/goals, Holocaust is an objectively wrong way to behave.

How would this map to "objective morality"?

[mistertim]

Maybe you haven't been reading yourself? Or you've seen what you wanted to see based on prejudice?

 

Nobody said that atheists can't do moral actions. We are arguing whether morality is objective or subjective. What we have said is that if morals are objective, they must come from God. That doesn't negate the fact that atheists can still do good or right actions. Hopefully that clears up your misconception of the discussion.

Interesting use of words. "Do moral actions" as opposed to "Be moral people". 

 

So then lets clear it up since apparently I've been mistaken and this thread had nothing to do with it (who knew?):

 

You believe in god. You believe in objective morality. You believe that this objective morality comes directly from god and god alone. Therefore, do you believe that atheists can be moral people or just that they can do moral actions (like...what? accidentally or something?) without actually being moral people?

[Rskins06]

Interesting.

 

You are intentionally being obtuse.

 

"GOD" perhaps was not used as a reference and certainly the Bible (pretty sure it was). We have had this conversation over the years.

A book written by someone other than the person/being... that is a based on a true story thing. I do have a soft spot for those type of stories though.

 

That alone makes it fictional.

 

I have no qualms about how you interpret the book.

My issue is that you and your ilk seemingly try to influence the rest of us to believe in it.

Sometimes uninvited.

 

Personally, I do not care what you believe in and many times find those topics interesting. I have read all of the major books on the topic. End of the day...cool story.

 

Grasp on that fictional part.

So now you respond by personally attacking my faith (being fictional, written by people other than, etc) and implying I am trying to influence you so you can believe what I believe in?  At what point have I (or any other Christian in this thread) tried to influence your beliefs and tell you what you should believe in? 

Seriously?  I really don't care what you do or do not believe in, that is on you. 

[Rskins06]

You believe in god. You believe in objective morality. You believe that this objective morality comes directly from god and god alone. Therefore, do you believe that atheists can be moral people or just that they can do moral actions (like...what? accidentally or something?) without actually being moral people?

I believe Atheists can be moral people, I don't think it is by accident.  Where did the moral upbringing come from?  Do you think it is a learned behavior or just something that happens because GOD tells us to be moral?  I have never heard GODs voice tell me directly to be of high moral character, I learned that from my parents, who learned that from their parents, etc.

Do I believe people today are moral because GOD says so, maybe.  However, do I believe peoples morals are a learned behavior as exemplified by their upbringing (parents, friends, relatives, etc)...absolutely.  Look back through families (atheists and theists) trees and I believe you will find your earlier relatives came from godly upbringings and had strong faiths in something.  Their faiths and beliefs have been passed down for centuries and carried on through current families and will continue to be passed down, not directly from GOD but an indirect occurence based on past experiences and behaviors.

So, I guess in essence, you could argue morality was established by GOD (a seed if you will which was planted) many years ago and continues today.  Does that mean Atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in GOD....No, not at all.

[mistertim]

I appreciate the post but, to be honest, it is a little annoying/insulting that you insist on adding caveats on to it when you say that atheists can be moral people. You still insist that it DID in fact come from religion, even if it was generations ago...which is a tenuous theory, at best, IMO.

[Rskins06]

How is it insulting/annoying?  You asked the question "do you believe Atheists can be moral people or just moral actions" and i answered it.  My caveat was simple, you may be an Atheist today, you may not believe in GOD (which is your right) but you were taught morals by someone.  You either learned it from parents, relatives, teachers, etc. who learned it from someone else. 

 

Where did they learn it from?  Where did their beliefs come from?  It isn't like someone just woke up and decided to all of a sudden be moral.  It was learned from somewhere.  If you are an Atheist, isn't it ok to acknowledge that somewhere in your family tree you had people of strong faith who passed down their faith / beliefs to their relatives and ultimately down to you?  That should not be insulting at all.  We all have free will, we have the ability to choose to believe or not.  My guess though, you will pass down your moral values down to your children, who in turn will pass it down to their children. 

 

I can tell you I am not a strong Christian, I believe but am far from a devout follower.  I learned morals from my parents, who learned it from their parents who had very strong Christian backgrounds.  Looking at my family tree, this has been the faith of my family for as long as researched (researched as far back as late 1700's).  Does it mean all of my family has this faith, no, I would guess my brother is not and potentially is an Atheist, which is ok.  He was taught the same moral values as I and is a person of high moral character and will pass those down as well.

 

My intentions were not to insult you, I was only giving you a response to a question and what my opinion of it is. 

[Bang]

it stands to reason that it "came" from religion.

religion was an early tool in civilizing an uncivilized ignorant world.

 

Without stirring any hornets up, early religious scholars were people who could think beyond the immediate. Whether or not they believed what they used, who knows.. stands to reason they did because even the most educated was still only educated up to the standards of the time, and the acceptance of God or gods was a given.

But using this entity as a tool to control population, this is undeniable, and not always in the malignant sense..   as we know, in those times life was hard, short and often plenty brutal.

 Neighboring villages made war on each other, roaming barbarians did whatever they wanted..  a lawless world in practically every sense. Not to mention so many conflicting gods and religions..   being able to consolidate it all and use it to educate people into behaving and somewhat advancing intellectually, it's an invaluable part of human history.

And the people who laid down the words of these morals, where they felt it was coming from isn't really here nor there.

if it was God, OK, so they would believe. If not, then OK, too, because the principle is the same and the integral lesson has been taught.

 

 

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

I remember now why i didn't like philosophy.... any debate is interesting for about 10 minutes, when you get people's big picture viewpoints, and then it always turns into an impassioned slugfest about the significance of using a comma versus a semicolon  

 

Don't think about it. Be philosophical.

[Zguy28]

Interesting use of words. "Do moral actions" as opposed to "Be moral people". 

 

So then lets clear it up since apparently I've been mistaken and this thread had nothing to do with it (who knew?):

 

You believe in god. You believe in objective morality. You believe that this objective morality comes directly from god and god alone. Therefore, do you believe that atheists can be moral people or just that they can do moral actions (like...what? accidentally or something?) without actually being moral people?

What if they do good and bad in the same day? Is that a moral person or an immoral person?

[alexey]

...

Where did they learn it from? Where did their beliefs come from? It isn't like someone just woke up and decided to all of a sudden be moral. It was learned from somewhere. If you are an Atheist, isn't it ok to acknowledge that somewhere in your family tree you had people of strong faith who passed down their faith / beliefs to their relatives and ultimately down to you? That should not be insulting at all.

...

Why not go farther back? People were teaching their children how to behave before they invented religion. Even farther back, it would be safe to say that social animals which eventually evolved into humans were teaching each other morality before they evolved higher mental processes needed for religious faith.

[Rskins06]

Why not go farther back? People were teaching their children how to behave before they invented religion. Even farther back, it would be safe to say that social animals which eventually evolved into humans were teaching each other morality before they evolved higher mental processes needed for religious faith.

That is just crazy talk, we all know there were Aliens here before them.  Ultimately, that has to be where we learned it from (sarcasm).

What if they do good and bad in the same day? Is that a moral person or an immoral person?

I guess they would then just be morally indecisive or morally confused or could be the reicarncation of Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde?

[mistertim]

 

My intentions were not to insult you, I was only giving you a response to a question and what my opinion of it is. 

No worries, I didn't take it personally. I was just talking in a general sense. Its like if someone were to express acceptance or acknowledgment of a belief of yours or a value of yours while at the same time trying to dismiss it or diminish it by saying it was actually just an offshoot of what they believe. 

[twa]

That is just crazy talk, we all know there were Aliens here before them.  Ultimately, that has to be where we learned it from (sarcasm).

 

 

 

Pretty sure God is a alien, but a naturalized American.

[mistertim]

Pretty sure God is a alien, but a naturalized American.

You trying to say the almighty can't be president of the USA? Burn.

[Zguy28]

Why not go farther back? People were teaching their children how to behave before they invented religion. Even farther back, it would be safe to say that social animals which eventually evolved into humans were teaching each other morality before they evolved higher mental processes needed for religious faith.

Do you teach your children how to behave, lay down rules, have consequences for breaking them, and set boundaries for what is right and wrong?

[PeterMP]

Your moral understanding would be incorrect according to my moral understanding.

I do not grant myself the power to say that you would be objectively wrong... But I would do my best to prevent you from hurting other people and to convince other people to do the same.

You still have to convince other people to embrace your understanding of right and wrong.

What do those "objective morals" get you? Objective morals give you a soapbox to stand on and a claim of ultimate authority. Worst yet, they allow you to absolve yourself from responsibility - those are not my rules, you see - God hates fill-in-the-blank!!

I prefer moral stances that are based on reasons and arguments.

 

Whether your like or prefer something or see the practical usefulness of it is not relevant to issue if it exist or not.

 

Either things like the Holocaust are always wrong, or they aren't.

 

That you don't like the types of arguments people will make if there are objective morals is irrelevant.

 

And your inability to separate these points is telling.

 

I deny techboy's premise #2, that objective moral values and duties exist as argued from human moral intuition. 

 

What is human moral intuition? The 'inner compass?' If objective morals exist because of god-granted intuition, shouldn't everybody's intuition be the same? Yet the individual moral intuitions of Zguy and myself differ, for example, on the gay marriage question. 

 

So objectively one of us is right, one is wrong. Due to our moral intuition which leads us to different conclusions regardless? I accept the logic of the syllogism but I'm hung up on #2. Great post though TB, a lot to think about. 

 

Objective morals don't exist because of god-granted intuition whether they exist or not.  Human intuition is frequently cited as evidence for objective morals, but the mechanism that causes the existence (i.e. the thing that makes them), if they do, is not human intuition.

 

The derivative of 2*x with respect to x is 2, but I don't think that's intuitive to most people in that most people can get the right answer without the proper education.

 

That doesn't change that the derivative of 2*x is an objective fact.

[alexey]

Whether your like or prefer something or see the practical usefulness of it is not relevant to issue if it exist or not.

Either things like the Holocaust are always wrong, or they aren't.

Sounds like you are treating "always wrong" as a synonym for "objectively wrong."

That is certainly a valid way of interpreting "always wrong," but it is not the only one.

For example, another interpretation of "always wrong" could mean "in all circumstances, according to my subjective morality"

[PeterMP]

Sounds like you are treating "always wrong" as a synonym for "objectively wrong."

That is certainly a valid way of interpreting "always wrong," but it is not the only one.

For example, another interpretation of "always wrong" could mean "in all circumstances, according to my subjective morality"

 

But your subjective morals could change so it doesn't make sense to use the word always with that condition.

 

And in time (upon your death) YOUR subjective morals will be irrelevant even.

 

The best statement you could make is based on my current subjective values, the things like the Holocaust are always wrong.

 

But I think we can agree that's a far weaker statement then saying things like the Holocaust are always wrong.