Question for Atheists

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And so you wish to define an "absolute right" and "absolute wrong". Problem is, right and wrong exist independently of matter. They are subjective, rather than physical things.

In other words you deny the existence of objective right and wrong?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
What did god tello joshua and his troops to do when they sacked Jericho?

Why did Lot have to give up his daughter to mass rape by the soddomites?

So killing and murdering is the same thing?

Where does the Bible say that Lot did give up his daughter to mass rape by the soddomites?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Murder is nothing more than unlawful killing. Thus, murdering members of a tyrannical government is possibly self-defense (and morally justified). Murder can't be absolutely wrong because laws are sometimes wrong.

Murder can't be absolutely wrong because laws are sometimes wrong.

How do you determine whether a law is right or wrong?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So killing and murdering is the same thing?

Where does the Bible say that Lot did give up his daughter to mass rape by the soddomites?

So what do you call it when a victorious army puts unarmed civilians to death? Everyone else calls it murder

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your sentence is poorly written, unclear and possibly grammatically incorrect. Don't blame me for your failures.

"So what if the maximization of your own pleasure causes pain to another individual?" - so what if it does? What are you asking?

According to your utalitarian position each person must maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain.

But many people maximize their own pleasure and in their wake leave countless hurting people and an aching society.

Now if there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as true and absolute right. If there is no God as you believe, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and demand that they place society above themselves. We have no standard by which to prove that doing good to others is any better than doing good only for oneself. If there is no God then all rules are mere opinion and have no authority. If there is no God to give you hope of life after death, you may as well ignore any notions of righteousness that self-appointed moralists shove at you and get on with doing only what you want in order to maximise your own pleasures no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.

Originally posted by dj2becker
In other words you deny the existence of objective right and wrong?

It is not a question of denial or acceptance. It is a question of definition. the word as is commonly used in the English language refers to a subjective thing. If there exists an absolute thing that you choose to call right then so be it, but you will be referring to something other than what is commonly meant by the word and so you should define your own meaning for the word before proceeding with the discussion.
However it would be more advisable to use a new word as the use of right looks like an attempt to hijack the original meaning of the word and intentional mislead careless readers.

FreakyKBH once tried to prove that the following are 'revealed attributes of God':
Sovereignty Righteousness Justice Love Eternal life Omnipresence
Omniscience Omnipotence Immutability Veracity

He did this by redefining the meanings of all the words so that their new meanings applied directly to God. In other words God fitted them by definition. However this in no way showed that God fitted the original meanings of the words and therefore was a totally meaningless discussion, but was an attempt to mislead people into thinking that he had proved that God fitted the original meanings of the words - a false claim.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So killing and murdering is the same thing?

Where does the Bible say that Lot did give up his daughter to mass rape by the soddomites?

It says he offered them, but they were refused.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
So what do you call it when a victorious army puts unarmed civilians to death? Everyone else calls it murder

So you are saying that it is immoral of God to command the killing of people that in your eyes are innocent?

Do you assume that an absolute moral standard does exist by which you can rightly differentiate between right and wrong?

Originally posted by dj2becker
In other words you deny the existence of objective right and wrong?

Morally, yes. Logically, no.


[edit; why haven't you responded to the thread addressed to you??]

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It says he offered them, but they were refused.

And does the Bible say that it was right for Lot to do this?

Originally posted by dj2becker
According to your utalitarian position each person must maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain.

But many people maximize their own pleasure and in their wake leave countless hurting people and an aching society.

I could be wrong but I think he said maximize everyones pleasures and minimize everyones pain.

Now if there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as true and absolute right.
It is meaningless to use the word true in this sentence. Could you have 'false absolute right'? However As I have said before there is no such thing as absolute right unless you are redefining the word whether or not God exists.

If there is no God as you believe, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and demand that they place society above themselves.
We can condemn and demand as much as we like whether or not we believe in God.

We have no standard by which to prove that doing good to others is any better than doing good only for oneself.
What do you mean by 'better' in this context?

If there is no God then all rules are mere opinion and have no authority.
What do you mean by authority? If you are referring to 'power' then you are wrong.

If there is no God to give you hope of life after death, you may as well ignore any notions of righteousness that self-appointed moralists shove at you and get on with doing only what you want in order to maximise your own pleasures no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.
True. And many people do, including theists, so hope of life after death does not seem to be a very effective incentive. Why do you have a problem with it?

Originally posted by dj2becker
According to your utalitarian position each person must maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain.

But many people maximize their own pleasure and in their wake leave countless hurting people and an aching society.

Now if there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as true and absolute right. If there is no God as you bel ...[text shortened]... se your own pleasures no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.

According to your utalitarian position each person must maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain.

Where did I say that? It is, in fact true, but the conscience, as I already explained, inflicts pain on us when we inflict it on others, and gives us pleasure when we give pleasure to others. Thus we are capable of altruism.

But many people maximize their own pleasure and in their wake leave countless hurting people and an aching society.

Such people are selfish. Their natural selfish tendencies are stronger than their natural altruistic tendencies.

However, even the most noble and heroic people, even if Christian, like martyrs, Mother Theresa, etc are also maximizing their own pleasure and minimizing their own pain! Such people believe in supernatural things which are so important to them that their physical bodies and pleasures from material things pale compared to their passion for their beliefs. These people have stronger consciences than they have selfish tendencies, but they strive for pleasure and avoid pain like any other animal capable of experiencing these things.

Now if there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as true and absolute right.

And God changes this how?

If there is no God as you believe, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and demand that they place society above themselves.

Sure we can. The existence or lack of God doesn't make a difference here either.

We have no standard by which to prove that doing good to others is any better than doing good only for oneself.

People choose their own standards and have their own values. There is no proof that one thing is "better" than another since betterness is an opinion. This is no different if God exists.

If there is no God to give you hope of life after death

See? Christians are just as selfish as anyone else. You do things because you want a better afterlife.

you may as well ignore any notions of righteousness that self-appointed moralists shove at you

I generally do when they "shove" their notions at me.

and get on with doing only what you want in order to maximise your own pleasures

Every human being, from me to you to Ghandi to Hitler to Jesus has always done exactly that. You cannot do otherwise. It's built into you.

no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.

Unless your conscience is strong enough to prevent you from doing this. The conscience is what makes us capable of intentionally doing good. It's a wonderful thing.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Morally, yes. Logically, no.

So logically by your definition of morality:

There can be no such thing as true and absolute right.

And, if there is no God as you believe, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and demand that they place society above themselves. In a world without God to underscore absolutes , we can't expect anyone to live according to the standards society chooses to set up. We have no standard by which to prove that doing good to others is any better than doing good only for oneself. If there is no God then all rules are mere opinion and have no authority. If there is no God to give you hope of life after death, you may as well ignore any notions of righteousness that self-appointed moralists shove at you and get on with doing only what you want in order to maximise your own pleasures no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.

Is that correct?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So logically by your definition of morality:

There can be no such thing as true and absolute right.

And, if there is no God as you believe, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and demand that they place society above themselves. In a world without God to underscore absolutes , we can't expect anyone to live acc ...[text shortened]... no matter how many other people you hurt and cause pain to in the process.

Is that correct?

I answered that I do not believe there to be absolute rightness w.r.t. morality. That does not mean that I do not believe in conditional rightness, or democracy, rightness as defined by the masses. After all, that's what all our laws are based on. You get locked up killing someone intentionally, but get off if they were going to kill you. Conditional rightness in action.

What a dramatist you are.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
What if society gets it wrong? What if they make bad laws? Is it right to say murder is absolutely wrong when laws are obviously not absolutely right?

Society gets it wrong (by someones opinion) all the time, but what they deem legal/illegal is still the law and therefore right/wrong in societys eyes.
The distinction is between what society says is right/wrong and what individuals think.
Society (law) says abortion is legal, therefore "right"; many individuals judge abortion as murder, therefore "wrong."