Morality : Who needs God?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-02-26 10:34pm

"If there is an absolute standard of morality, then there must be a God. Disagree? Consider the alternative."

Feel free to rip this article apart, mah homie Gs.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-26 10:37pm

Ah yes, so as long as God says it's OK to do something, then it is moral. No wait, it's as long as your god says it's OK to do something, then it is moral.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-26 10:41pm

Just another religious idiot who thinks that a moral standard from an authority greater than any individual human must be an imaginary invisible man in the sky, rather than a collective society of humans.

He draws a false dilemma between morality being completely individual to each and every person and morality being derived from an imaginary man in the sky. Also, he ignores the fact that the imaginary man in the sky's wishes are not known except through the writings of primitive bigoted morons, and that if the imaginary man in the sky wishes us to accept his superior authority, then he can damned well come out and show himself. Not to mention the fact that the imaginary man in the sky may be an asshole, so why should he have the right to dictate morality?

Of course, one could go blue in the face listing ALL of the things wrong with the article (also look at the way he assumes that without religion, human societies will gleefully embrace cruelty, even though history has shown the opposite: that human societies tend to be MORE cruel with stronger religious influences).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:42pm

I don't think she makes a very good case for why you need God for moral absolutes. Surely you can derive moral absolutes from other sources.

And given that the Old Testamant God routinely violated his code of absolute morality to suit his purposes, I don't think he can be relied upon to maintain an absolute system of morality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-26 10:44pm

Premise 1: man cannot devise his own system of morality.

Premise 2: something larger than man must dictate morality to us.

Observation: elephant is larger than man.

Conclusion: we must look to elephants for morality

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:45pm

This article just revels in its either-or reasoning. I mean Absolute Morality vs. Moral Relativism; anyone can see that there's some gray area between the two. Except morons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-26 10:47pm

You're just saying that because you don't want to accept the moral authority of Elephant.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:You're just saying that because you don't want to accept the moral authority of Elephant.

Ah, but the elephant is not infinite!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-26 10:50pm

Hows about the imaginary elephents that exist everywhere?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-26 10:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're just saying that because you don't want to accept the moral authority of Elephant.
Ah, but the elephant is not infinite!

Ah, but Elephant is still larger than man, thus has moral authority over him. See fundie premise #2.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:53pm

Maybe God is a metaphor for human stupidity. Both are infinite and larger than man.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-26 11:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're just saying that because you don't want to accept the moral authority of Elephant.
Ah, but the elephant is not infinite!
Ah, but Elephant is still larger than man, thus has moral authority over him. See fundie premise #2.

So then the Sequoias and Blue Whales have the highest morality on Earth.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-26 11:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're just saying that because you don't want to accept the moral authority of Elephant.
Ah, but the elephant is not infinite!
Ah, but Elephant is still larger than man, thus has moral authority over him. See fundie premise #2.

No, no, your argument is all wrong (never thought I'd say that to you). "Large" is ambiguous in this context, and you are therefore guilty of the equivocation fallacy.

(I know it's a joke, but when else do I get to correct you?)

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-26 11:23pm

In my little village there's a good amount of liberal-esque Catholics living here for some reason. In my dealings with them I seem to notice that they see their personal version of "God" as their asperation to and the epitomy of highest morality. So, I guess the less insane non-fundie religious people need God in that sense. Insane fundies need God because they like to follow things.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-26 11:26pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Ah, but the elephant is not infinite!
Ah, but Elephant is still larger than man, thus has moral authority over him. See fundie premise #2.
So then the Sequoias and Blue Whales have the highest morality on Earth.

Why must morality be constrained to mortal beings such as elephants, sequoias, and blue whales? If god cannot die, then he is not alive, and if god presumably can be the source of morality, then non-living things can be the source of morality.
So I propose that something even larger is responsible for absolute morality. Look to the Earth itself, or maybe even the universe.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-26 11:36pm

Robert Treder wrote:Why must morality be constrained to mortal beings such as elephants, sequoias, and blue whales? If god cannot die, then he is not alive, and if god presumably can be the source of morality, then non-living things can be the source of morality.

So I propose that something even larger is responsible for absolute morality. Look to the Earth itself, or maybe even the universe.

Ah, so the older and bigger something is, the more moral it is? This may indeed be a more accurate description of fundie logic.

This means that nebulae have superior morality to giant stars, which in turn have superior moral authority over main-sequence stars, all of which naturally have superior moral authority over planets and asteroid belts, and so on in a natural progression down to us lowly humans

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-26 11:37pm

Fuck yeah, RT! I seriously look to the balance of nature and the universe as my guiding point for morality. Anyway, this Elephant creature intrigues me. I wish to know more about this strange being higher in height thus high in morality to man.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-26 11:38pm

That's why we must spend our lives in humble sacrifice to the universe. All forms of entertainment and pleasure are abominations before the universe.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-26 11:40pm

Though as we are bigger than them we still get to order dogs around and hold moral superiority to them (hence "bad dog").

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-26 11:40pm

Yes. Kill the infidels.

Think about it. I mean, the universe is everything, right? And since everything needs to be balanced in order to be in harmony with it, it is a good model for morality.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-26 11:40pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Fuck yeah, RT! I seriously look to the balance of nature and the universe as my guiding point for morality. Anyway, this Elephant creature intrigues me. I wish to know more about this strange being higher in height thus high in morality to man.

I was joking, but right on. The universe does kick ass.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-27 12:04am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Yes. Kill the infidels.

Think about it. I mean, the universe is everything, right? And since everything needs to be balanced in order to be in harmony with it, it is a good model for morality.

This would be a good topic for consideration in seriousness, if it were not for the fact that the universe casually lets entire planets get destroyed when things like novas happen.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-27 12:06am

SirNitram wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:Yes. Kill the infidels.

Think about it. I mean, the universe is everything, right? And since everything needs to be balanced in order to be in harmony with it, it is a good model for morality.
This would be a good topic for consideration in seriousness, if it were not for the fact that the universe casually lets entire planets get destroyed when things like novas happen.

But that doesn't make the universe a prick, it's just that the universe gave the planets free will.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-27 12:07am

SirNitram wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:Yes. Kill the infidels.

Think about it. I mean, the universe is everything, right? And since everything needs to be balanced in order to be in harmony with it, it is a good model for morality.
This would be a good topic for consideration in seriousness, if it were not for the fact that the universe casually lets entire planets get destroyed when things like novas happen.

The universe has a greater plan, mortal. Acts of mass-murder by morally perfect deities are perfectly acceptable under fundie logic.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-27 12:12am

So what? It happened because the star was old and went boom. That's the way my morality goes: it's balanced. That means you've got to take the bad along with the good. And in the case of novas eating poor little planets, it is a neutral event. Everything's gotta go and die someday, you know.