Micah #fundie

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

if God is not the objective standard for right and wrong then that would mean there is a higher standard than God which is impossible since there is nothing greater than God.

74 comments

old comment by Nemo

If your definition of morality requires that an actor have an external motivation in order for the term "moral" to apply, then your "objective moral oughts" are indistinguishable from rational oughts, despite all your special pleading to the contrary. If morality does not require an external motivation in order for the term moral to apply, then Yahweh and his Ministry of Love are unnecessary for the existence of morality.

1680681,

But, but, are YOU glorious, and perfect according to Yahweh? What's that, you aren't? Well, HOW DARE YOU SO MUCH AS RAISE YOUR EYEBROWS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE GREAT GOD OF WAR??!! Yahweh created everything, so he can do whatever he wants forever and ever because he also said he is perfect and can do whatever he wants because he also said he is perfect! Fear my "virtuously" circular reasoning!

Ok, fundie mode off.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"if God is not the objective standard for right and wrong then that would mean there is a higher standard than God which is impossible since there is nothing greater than God."

image

God: 2,038,344

Satan (and only on God's authorisation): 10

Anon-e-moose: 0

Thank you, Micah, for admitting that:

1- The above is the perfect advert for Satanism (especially so for Luciferism).

2- As I have never killed anyone in my life, nor do I want to, ever, I am more than infinitely superior to God.

How objective can you get?

In light of the above Scripture-based facts, you Christain fundies would do well in never persuing this line of philosophical 'logic' ever again. Seems that philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wasn't just referring to God being dead. [/Irony]

...oh, and 'If.' [/Spartan Laconic Wit]

old comment by Swede

Who created God? Who created the other deities? How do you know your god is The One? No, the fact that you were taught about him first when you were little is not a reason.

Btw, the Bible tells you to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor; have you (or Jason) done that yet? Why not?

There is no objective standard for right and wrong.
It's wrong to steal food, but if you would otherwise starve to death, how wrong is it then?
It's wrong to hit someone, but if someone is strangling you, how wrong is it to hit him/her?

The Golden Rule works fairly well as a basic standard for right and wrong. Would you want to starve to death or be strangled? Probably not.

old comment by newbonomicon

A list of assumptions this statement must make before being logically sound:

1) A single, conscious entity created the Universe.
2) This entity either created humans or guided their evolution.
3) This entity intended specific guidelines for all humans to follow.
4) This entity gave similar, but distinct, guidelines, to older civilizations, without revealing its true identity to them, OR, ancient cultures developed morality without thi6is entity.
5) This entity first revealed itself to the Jews, thousands of years into human civilization.
6) This entity personally guided the writing of the bible.
7) The translation of the bible you use is 100% accurate.
8) The bible was intended as a sole source of morality for the entire future of humanity, regardless of situation.

old comment by

"If God IS the standard of righteousness, how do theists evaluate right and wrong?"

"Thou shalt not kill"
"Treat your neighbor as yourself"

Ok, fine, but then in your "holy book of right and wrong" god says:

"Kill all of the Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and animals.", is this therefore right, and would you then do this this? What if some of the women are pregnant?
"Kill all the Midianite males, and therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What if some of the women are pregnant?
"Kill entire towns if any one within is worshipping other gods", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What about those in that town that are worshipping your god? Do you still kill them? What if they're women, and are pregnant?
"Kill followers of other religions", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What if they're women, and are pregnant?
"Kill those working on the sabbath", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What if they're women, and are pregnant?
"Kill witches", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What if they're women, and are pregnant?
"Kill homosexuals", is this therefore right, and would you then do this? What if they're women, and are pregnant?
...and there's more...

How do YOU evaluate right and wrong?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Troll4Life

I don't do what you're doing now: Trolling. Never have, never will. Why should I? All you have to do is create that 'Opposing Views' blog of yours, to spew your BS to whoever you think would be interested. [/ASTWC]

And remember: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101449&Page=1#1672587

Why do I subvert the expectations of those - like right-wing Fundamentalist Christains - who think that only they have the monopoly on 'morality', by:

1- Not smoking myself into an early grave. After seeing others behind the bike sheds at school, just that alone was sufficient in putting me off smoking for life. I choose to not smoke.

2- Not becoming a walking distillery so as to make Oliver Reed seem a Teetotaller in comparison. Watching a relative die of complete circulatory collapse as a result of extreme alcohol poisoning served as the perfect aversion therapy. I choose to only drink in moderation.

3- Not becoming a walking pharamaceutical lab, by talking any & all known (& unknown) hallucinogens. I like my brain 'as is'; if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and all that jazz. I choose to not take drugs.

4- Not being a thief/arsonist/rapist/murderer/etc. Mainly because I wouldn't like it if anyone else did the same to me. I choose to be a good, decent & civilised human being who doesn't have a criminal record for so much as spitting on the pavement. Being smug, superior and Holier-Than-Thou (certainly to you fundie Christains). Feels good, man. Just ask Jonathan Edwards. [/OSAS]

And therefore my point: I don't even think of what you're doing, and have done for years now here in FSTDT: Trolling. The $64 trillion question: Is trolling the behaviour of a psychologically secure, normal, decent human being, never mind a moral Christian...? Abraham & Isaac; Genesis 22:5/8

Moral (snerk!): I am not what the likes of you, o Troll4Life, think I - an Atheist - am. Because I can. And because religions - least of all yours - don't have the monopoly on them.

You're one to talk about such:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=67911&Page=3

"I was a fucking crackwhore living on the street"

No doubt taking it up the arse from so many johns who preferred anal (thus your Christain guilt-warped perverted mind & obsession with gay men). I refer you to my previous post.

Who is the more moral...?

old comment by His4Life

I am glad that atheists have a moral compass and I certainly don't deny atheists can be good people, wonderful neighbors, and loving friends. However, it seems like the atheist bases morality on the question - "what is good for me or society," which is subjective rather than objective. Social norms change. In Nazi Germany, it was thought that putting people in concentration camps was "good for society," but today we clearly recognize that is a horrifying way to treat people. For me personally, Christianity helps provide a universal standard that tells me mistreating people was wrong then, is wrong today, and will still be wrong tomorrow. It tells me I must love my neighbor regardless of social norms and whatever his or her background, color, or place in life. That's a beautiful thing that helps me navigate the world.

old comment by Evgir Unslaad

@His4Life

First off, thank you for being polite! Seriously, it means a lot to me to have someone nonconfrontational with different views from most others - it's nice to be reminded that there's really no "us vs. them" going on except at the absolute lunatic fringe.

Anyway, I can respect your beliefs and that they help you to be a better human being on the planet. I believe that people have inborn morality, things that help the group - i.e. no killing, no stealing, looking down on hoarders and the selfish... things like that. Most religions have more or less the same moral rules, maybe with some dietary restrictions or something similar on top. From Christianity (love thy neighbor as thyself) to Wicca (if it harm none, do as ye will), they're all more or less okay, at least in the major tenets. (This is not the time to discuss the Old Testament, and, having been raised Jewish, I'm... quite familiar with it. And with how little it affects daily life.)

In any case, getting back on topic, I believe that religious rules are a product of morality, not the other way around. It doesn't matter if you believe in the Abrahamic god, the Triple Goddess, the Egyptian pantheon, no god at all, anything - you have the potential and (excepting cases of antisocial personality) desire to be a good person. People are, in general, good at heart.

That's what I think, anyway.

old comment by Mister Spak

Continued from above

"In Nazi Germany, it was thought that putting people in concentration camps was "good for society,"

No, it was because Biblegod wanted Hitler to defeat the international jew.

"but today we clearly recognize that is a horrifying way to treat people."

Yes because the atheist view, lacking a giant man who lives on clouds, has become more influential.

"For me personally, Christianity helps provide a universal standard that tells me mistreating people was wrong then, is wrong today, and will still be wrong tomorrow."

Those 1950s christians felt the same about limiting black people to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now do you understand the problem when you use subjective morality?

"It tells me I must love my neighbor regardless of social norms and whatever his or her background, color, or place in life."

As long as he keeps his wood hewing and water drawing place in life. If not, get out the bedsheets and shotguns.

"That's a beautiful thing that helps me navigate the world. "

It's also the same beautiful thing that helps the bedsheet boys navigate the world. Aren't you glad god told them what place he intended black people to occupy?

old comment by Nomen Nescio

social norms change, and ethics based on social norms change with them. this is an accurate description; it doesn't take much study of history and sociology to see that that is, indeed, how moral philosophy works in real life. you don't have to like this fact, but it is nevertheless fact.

it'd be nice and convenient if there were an objective, unchanging, standard of morality independent of human society. but if we assume there is such a thing, then two important questions pop immediately to mind: what exactly is that standard, and how exactly can we be sure that that particular standard is in fact objective and unchanging? until those two questions, at very least, have received good answers, there's no reason to even proceed on to the third important question: why should we bother following this objective standard of morality?

besides which, i'm not convinced that a static, unchanging standard would be a good thing, anyway. it'd be a simple thing, it'd be convenient, but the important bits of life are rarely simple or convenient. another fact we can learn from studying how things work in the real world: change is the only constant, and the only people who get conveniently static existences are the dead; changelessness is stagnation. ever-changing subjective standards may be a necessary thing.

old comment by

objective standard

A standard that all beings are held to...? That would include your god. So, yes.. if an objective standard existed is would be, BY DEFINITION, a higher standard than your god.

If nothing is higher than your god, then there is no objective standard... which is impossible because that would stop your god being the objective standard.

Of course, you could argue that your god is not held to that objective standard, which means it's not an objective standard at all... so your god isn't the objective standard, which means there is no such thing as a definitive right and/or wrong.

Or your god simply doesn't exist... which means you can have that objective standard, you just have to admit you believe in a lie. Take your pick...

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Evgir Unslaad

"@His4Life

First off, thank you for being polite!"

Oh... if only you knew! And 'nonconfrontational'?! We wish!

The way her blatant trolling MO - that even Stevie Wonder can see - works, is positively schizophrenic! It's almost as if she has multiple personalities, certainly the techniques she uses/has used in yanking our chains: being 'reasonable', to threatening ('Turn or Burn'/'Revenge Fantasies'), to 'acting' drunk, to dense & the point higher over her head than the International Space Station, to changing her mind so many times (only not that way..!), to goodness-knows-what she'll do next in her latest reinfection of FSTDT (but to no avail, re. her actual 'agenda': thinking that we'll all just say 'You're absolutely right! Where do we sign up for this 'Sal(i)vation' you speak of, and is the Lobotomy included in the deal?! [/hyper-sarcasm]; instead spewing her BS under the insane notion that they're 'opinions').

...to the extent that, indeed...:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=100714&Page=1#1660329

@His4Life

"As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about, His4Life."

image

So 1) Welcome to FSTDT; long may you snark (at fundies) here, and 2) Don't expect consistency here with MultiplePersonalityDisorder4Life, other than her trolling.

For a quick crash course, click on 'Search', then type 'His4Life' in the 'Author' field. Then prepare to have your previous expectations - certainly taking her at her word ITT - about 'His4Life' utterly destroyed. (An example of T4L's inconsistencies/contradictions/schizophrenia/hypocrisies/lies: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101449&Page=1#1670881 http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101449&Page=1#1672587

'Polite'? Her?! Yeah. Right. [/hyper-sarcasm] If she's as 'polite' as she makes at least you think she is, then she'd better start answering our questions to OUR satisfaction, even if she's left so argumentally/logically cornered she'd have no alternative but to do a Jonathan Edwards, recant of the unjustifiable 'beliefs' - certainly the hypocrisies - that make her behave in this unjustifiable way, and become an Atheist (http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=89336&Page=6#1449034 Yes, I AM asking you to change your 'beliefs'. Problem*?)

*- http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101449&Page=1#1672587

Read it very carefully. 'Opposing Views'? Yeah. Right. [/hyper-sarcasm II] Go and create your own 'Opposing Views' blog then, if you think your 'Opinions' have any value whatsoever, because they certainly don't here in FSTDT, least of all in persuading anyone not exactly like you to come to your way of thinking.

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=81077&Page=5#1286713

@Derpy4Life:

"I frankly have no interest in "changing your beliefs" or convincing you of the reality of God, heaven or hell."

If you frankly have no interest in 'changing our beliefs" or convincing us of the 'reality' (LOL!) of God, heaven or hell', question: Why are you here, then?! [/hyper-paradox]

That 'Opposing Views' blog awaits...!

old comment by Playonwords

@ His4Life as you have posted reasonably you will get a reasonable response.

In the brains of mammals and other chordates there are structures called mirror neurones. They are an evolved structure that triggers when an activity outside the creature observing is seen or heard. They allow the creature with these neurones to anticipate the actions of what they observe.

For a tiger they let it predict the actions of a deer; for a deer they allow it to predict the actions of the tiger. Additionally they allow the deer to predict the actions and feelings of other members of the herd so allowing the herd to function as a social unit. These functions allow animals with these structures to act ethically towards others; a deer will know that kicking the fawn of another member of the herd will anger the mother and probably other mothers, this is empathy.

Humans have these mirror neurones as well and we use them extensively. The empathy they grant allows us to be ethical towards other humans. There is recursion as well, we can imagine another human or creature and consider the results of our actions on that model, then modify our imagined behaviours and track the response of the imagined person and so on.

old comment by Evgir Unslaad

@Anon-e-moose

Glad to see you understand my rationale... honestly, I was a bit scared for a moment! Turning you against me would not have been a good start to my time here. C:

Anyway, I just remembered something from an old psychology class that is applicable here. This was years ago that I learned this, so I don't remember all the details. There was once a study where the scientists in charge showed a large population of babies (with their parents'/legal guardians' consent and presence, of course - scientific ethics are a thing, which would probably make a few fundies' heads explode! CX) a puppet show with two versions. Both started the same - one puppet is struggling to open a box and another comes along. This is where they diverge - in one of them, the second puppet helps the first one open the box, and in the other, it slams the box shut and runs away. The only difference between the helpful puppet and the harmful one, besides behavior, is shirt color.

Afterwards, the scientists offered both "second puppets" to the babies. This is double-blind, so that the scientist offering the toys does not know which is which to prevent Clever Hans-esque skew. The parents also close their eyes to avoid influencing the result.

Turns out most of the babies - over 75% of them - reached for the nice "second puppet"! The babies knew, without verbal skills, with movement abilities similar to those of a potato, the difference between right and wrong. (I think some of them even hit the "mean" puppet, but don't quote me on that one.) For me, that's enough evidence that morality is inborn and that people are generally good.

old comment by Anon-e-mose

@Evgir Unslaad

"@Moose

I'm pretty sure any universe with Derpy in charge would be absolutely amazing for all the wrong reasons."

image

And it would still be infinitely more benevolent than that put forward by your so-called 'God of unconditional Love', eh Derpy Arse Bentover, Duckass and Minibrain? Prove me wrong.

As His Holy Sauciness touches those who are [i]good[/i], especially via the celebration that is 'Talk Like A Pirate Day', Derpy Hooves is the FSM's confectionery counterpart: with her own celebration: Derpy Day (March 1st).

Combine the two, and...:

image

...well, there be treasure o' Muffins aplenty delivered by yon bubble-flanked pone me hearties! Arrrrr! /)^3^(\

An' I'll keelhaul this blasted keyboard for not spellin' me moniker rightly It's Anon-e-moose! One o' these days I'll send it down to Davy Jones' Locker (or the storage cupboard of any other member of The Monkees!) a-prior to me givin' the scurvy thing six strokes of the cat! (*Meow!-meow!-meow!-meow!-meow!-meow!*)

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

74 comments

Confused?