::Cracks his knuckles:: Ooh boy, this will be goooooood.
Let's start in, shall we?
EvilGrey wrote:The Nature of Morality in Atheism
Morality is inherently relative because it is defined by personal convictions and not an objective standard. The ever-so-revered Golden Rule is a subjective standard because the notion of not doing harm to others is not an absolute principle. Consequently, morality is only what each person makes of it, and no one is inherently right or wrong.
Here we see EvilGrey draw the Black-and-White fallacy. He states that because the Golden Rule does not apply in ALL situations, it cannot apply in ANY situation. Reading this falsehood is like being slapped in the head with a half-rack of lamb: It's stunning, but when you think about it, it's damned funny. What's funnier still is that this position is taken from the Golden Rule (as if it were some kind of universal standard) and applied to man's morality in general. He states that because previously established moral codes do not necessarily apply in all cases (moral theft, for example), that all morality amounts to little more than word-fodder. News flash: There is no such thing as a subjective and universal moral standard. Your precious Christian theologians said as much. Hell, Aquinas even went so far as to say that religion doesn't provide morality at ALL. Chew on that a bit.
Oh, but it gets better!
The Nature of Morality in Enlightened Theism
There are two forms of morality: The arbitrary systems of man and the objective, universal system ordained by God.
Is that so? Well then. Game over. Everyone go back home and read your bible. Hell, and here I was thinking that man could solve all of his own problems! All we have to do is read the moral code as stated in the Bible, and we're all set! I mean, the Bible IS the Word of God, right? So what's written there is indicative of God's will. So let's start our reading with, oh... Genisis 19. What does that teach us? Gays are bad. Fair enough. Let's switch chapters. Leviticus 18: Gays are bad. Women on their period are "unclean." Excellent. Well I'm glad we got this whole morality thing cleared up. I feel better.
The system ordained by God is:
1) Objective. It exists and will do so indefinitely, even after life perishes.
First logical fallacy: Geez, you know, I'm CERTAIN I put that evidence around here somewhere.... How embarassing.
Second logical fallacy: Objectivity has nothing to do with longevity. Stating that it is objective has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that either a) it exists at all (which has not been proved) or b) that it will do so indefinitely (which is contingent upon a, which has not been proved).
2) Absolute. It is perfect.
If by "perfect" you mean "sadistic." Here, let's give some of God's reasoning:
A) Kill gays because they are evil and inhospitable. (Sodom and Gomorrah)
B) Eternally torture people who kill other people. Because that makes you better than them. (Cain and Abel)
C) Fuck everyone, I'm starting over. (Noah)
D) Associate prostitutes with Satan and the Apocalypse (Revelations), and condemn prostitutes to death by stoning (Leviticus) but save the whores. (Mary Magdeline)
E) Slavery is OK because some men were born to be subservient. (Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John)
Shall I go on? I could do so all day.
3) Universal. Its reach extends to all sentient beings -- assuming God wishes it to be universal.
Ah, I see. So lemmings who commit suicide for population control are all going to hell? Or penguins, who are naturally bisexual, are condemned to eternal peril? Animals who mate once with any given partner before moving on to the next are just sex fiends and should be burned? I mean, I don't know of any dogs who take wedding vows; are they all going to hell for sex out of wedlock?
You also say, "assuming God wishes it to be universal," and here, ladies and gents, we find the fundamental flaw in this FundieNut's argument (which, by the way, is not his own, but rather blatantly ripped off from Vatican II documents). You assume that God wishes for his morality to be universal, but you recognize that it may not necessarily be so. Well, my fine fundie friend, did you ever stop to consider that maybe God's morality doesn't extend to us humans at all? And that all this mumbo-jumbo about living according to God's morality is just a bunch of cannon-fodder to detract from the general sentiment that God never really told us exactly how to act in all situations? "When in doubt, be like God," right? Well if this were the case, then I'd go around smiting gays (and myself, for that matter) and buying slaves right off the boat from Senegal.
Besides that, I thought you said that there was no Universal morality to begin with. Here, let me slap you with your own contradiction.
God's omnipotence, infallibility, and perfect nature make His sytem of morality objective, absolute, and universal; therefore, God's morality is superior to any form of manmade morality.
Excuse me while I laugh a bit. Man-made morality explains what God does not. For example, man-made morality says that killing is bad. God seemed to think otherwise. Man-made morality says that if your kid is starving, and you're broke, it's ok to steal food for the kid. God says otherwise. Man-made morality says that if a guy punches you in the head, you punch him back. God apparently wants you to get the shit beaten out of yourself by turning the other cheek. God leaves gaps, and therefore his morality is imperfect. Man's morality fills the gaps, and adopts the better parts of God's morality as it's own, and therefore MAN'S morality is perfect.
Because there has been an inability among the denizens of this BBS to distinguish God's actions from God's system of morality, it is important that I state the following:
1) God is a sovereign being and is not bound to any system of morality, whether it be His own or those of men.
2) Morality and actions are not the same. To deem God's system of morality as evil on the account of His actions is erroneous. God is neither moral nor immoral, good nor evil; God is neutral.
3) Judging God as evil is impossible because a man's finite power is incapable of effectuating change in the actual nature of God. A man can deem a pencil evil, but objectively the pencil's neutral nature has not been altered. Likewise, a man can deem God evil, but his judgement is meaningless and powerless because it does not alter God's actual nature.
You know, this reminds me of when I was younger. I used to play Cowboys and Indians with my friends, and I was always the Indian. Every time a friend of mine would shoot me, I would pretend that I had a bullet-proof vest to avoid dying. Eventually they stopped playing with me.
Ok, so we can't judge God based on his actions, but He can judge us based on ours? Seems like too much of a double-standard for a creator who made us in his image, doesn't it?
Let me enlighten you a bit. There are two types of things in this world: Things that can be proven to exist, and things that cannot be proven to exist. The things that CAN be proven to exist are either tangible or abstract, but either way man has developed a system of explaining and predicting why and when things happen. If you can explain why it happens, you have mastered it. It is real and inarguable. If God were such a big, driving force in the Universe and in the nature of man, as you claim, there would be some kind of emperical data on him. Any kind of emperical data at all. All we have is heresay. No fossils, nothing to radiocarbon date, no photographs, no primary-source documents... Nothing. Which means that any kind of morality that God could make is likewise unsubstantiated.
Questions? Comments?
Got a question: If God told you to kill a kitten, would you do it?
