God.

[DaWoad]

1) Do you know what the Catholic Church used to gain support for the Crusades? Something along the lines of "Holy War", perhaps?
2) The Spanish Inquisition was not the only Inquisition. Besides, Isabella and Ferdinand wanted to have a pure, Catholic nation (hence the Reconquista).
3) Blatantly false. Hitler used the deicide theory, Jewish stereotypes, and undirected angst over the Treaty of Versailles to justify the killing of the Jews.
4) Yes, I agree. The route of the cause is suppressed sexuality within the church.
5) What separates most of the tribes is religion.
History 101.

Your repeated use of "used" just proves my point. You can "use" literally anything to justify your own actions of ulterior motives. The question is, does it really?

sure you can. But what's less easy is a way to motivate others to do the same thing. And the bible? It kinda does. Have you read the OT? Parts of it are essentially cheering sections for genocide.

[Gaiso]

1) Do you know what the Catholic Church used to gain support for the Crusades? Something along the lines of "Holy War", perhaps?
2) The Spanish Inquisition was not the only Inquisition. Besides, Isabella and Ferdinand wanted to have a pure, Catholic nation (hence the Reconquista).
3) Blatantly false. Hitler used the deicide theory, Jewish stereotypes, and undirected angst over the Treaty of Versailles to justify the killing of the Jews.
4) Yes, I agree. The route of the cause is suppressed sexuality within the church.
5) What separates most of the tribes is religion.
History 101.

Your repeated use of "used" just proves my point. You can "use" literally anything to justify your own actions of ulterior motives. The question is, does it really?

That was the motivation. Simple as that. Stop grasping at straws, it makes your position look weaker than it already is.

[Jasonovia]

Your repeated use of "used" just proves my point. You can "use" literally anything to justify your own actions of ulterior motives. The question is, does it really?

sure you can. But what's less easy is a way to motivate others to do the same thing. And the bible? It kinda does. Have you read the OT? Parts of it are essentially cheering sections for genocide.

The easiest way to do it would be to say there is no system of morality other than what we make for ourselves, then make one up that suits your needs perfectly. Otherwise you have to slide all that "love your neighbor" stuff under the rug and hope nobody notices.

[Jasonovia]

Your repeated use of "used" just proves my point. You can "use" literally anything to justify your own actions of ulterior motives. The question is, does it really?

That was the motivation. Simple as that. Stop grasping at straws, it makes your position look weaker than it already is.

That's the only point i wanted to make from this. Thank you.

[Gaiso]

sure you can. But what's less easy is a way to motivate others to do the same thing. And the bible? It kinda does. Have you read the OT? Parts of it are essentially cheering sections for genocide.

The easiest way to do it would be to say there is no system of morality other than what we make for ourselves, then make one up that suits your needs perfectly. Otherwise you have to slide all that "love your neighbor" stuff under the rug and hope nobody notices.

Morality comes from our evolution as a pack animal. It benefits the the whole group to have a common system of respect.

[DaWoad]

sure you can. But what's less easy is a way to motivate others to do the same thing. And the bible? It kinda does. Have you read the OT? Parts of it are essentially cheering sections for genocide.

The easiest way to do it would be to say there is no system of morality other than what we make for ourselves,

that's pretty much how it works IMO.

then make one up that suits your needs perfectly.

generally no. Societal/parental/evolutionary pressures all play a role. It's a heck of a lot more complex than "make one up that suits your needs"

Otherwise you have to slide all that "love your neighbor" stuff under the rug and hope nobody notices.

so. . . what religious folks have been doing for centuries? *grins* or, more seriously, yah that happens a lot in everyone but,f you look at prison rates, it apparently happens more frequently amongst the religious.

[Jasonovia]

The easiest way to do it would be to say there is no system of morality other than what we make for ourselves, then make one up that suits your needs perfectly. Otherwise you have to slide all that "love your neighbor" stuff under the rug and hope nobody notices.

Morality comes from our evolution as a pack animal. It benefits the the whole group to have a common system of respect.

So what about those who only want to live for themselves and are strong enough to impose this on the rest of the group?

[DaWoad]

Morality comes from our evolution as a pack animal. It benefits the the whole group to have a common system of respect.

So what about those who only want to live for themselves and are strong enough to impose this on the rest of the group?

you seriously going to try to argue that doesn't happen in religious circles?

[Fiddlegreen Farms]

I believe in God in my own unconventional concept of it.

[Unhealthy2]

Morality comes from our evolution as a pack animal. It benefits the the whole group to have a common system of respect.

Sorry, that's not quite how evolution works. Group selection is dead.

What happens is that strategies like kin selection and reciprocal altruism are good strategies for the survival of genes, so they are good strategies for evolutionary selection.

[Unhealthy2]

So what about those who only want to live for themselves and are strong enough to impose this on the rest of the group?

We have to deal with them every so often, though, there really is no individual that can impose their whole will on the entire world.

[Unhealthy2]

Also I would go on the record as saying that I'm unconvinced by moral subjectivism, and I don't think that morality has to be something totally made up just because a god doesn't exist.

[Stormaer]

God. Do you believe in him? Or is he not real? Please share your opinions/beliefs.

(the Christian God is the one I am talking about)

I do believe there is a greater power in the universe, howeve i do not believe that power is as our religions say he is.. I believe heavily in fate however. That every action we do might be part of a master plan carefully plotted by that divine being, wheter it leads us to glory or destruction? i do not now...

[Jasonovia]

So what about those who only want to live for themselves and are strong enough to impose this on the rest of the group?

you seriously going to try to argue that doesn't happen in religious circles?

Not at all. But it goes a long way in preventing that from happening, or at least remediating it. Otherwise you can't really call him out on being wrong, since there is no true "wrong" here.

[Unhealthy2]

Otherwise you can't really call him out on being wrong, since there is no true "wrong" here.

Nonsense.

[Jasonovia]

Otherwise you can't really call him out on being wrong, since there is no true "wrong" here.

Nonsense.

Prove objective morality then.

[Unhealthy2]

Prove objective morality then.

viewtopic.php?p=5409608#p5409608

[Jasonovia]

Prove objective morality then.

viewtopic.php?p=5409608#p5409608

What I'm getting out of that is "I have intrinsic value because I said so."

As far as how it relates to God, Aquinas says God is good because it is His nature to be good, so goodness isn't whatever God arbitrarily dictates, but morality still originates in God.

[Voek]

Yes.

[Ottomark]

I like to think there is a God out there. I also appreciate the maturity people are keeping on this forum.

[Bottle]

viewtopic.php?p=5409608#p5409608

What I'm getting out of that is "I have intrinsic value because I said so."

As far as how it relates to God, Aquinas says God is good because it is His nature to be good, so goodness isn't whatever God arbitrarily dictates, but morality still originates in God.

"I have intrinsic value because I say that God says so" really isn't any more convincing, you know.

[Unhealthy2]

What I'm getting out of that is "I have intrinsic value because I said so."

That's a simplistic though somewhat reasonable summarization of what I said. I said that, because human consciousness can assign value to things, and because human consciousness is part of a person, a person can use their consciousness to assign value to themselves. By definition, this value is intrinsic because this action of value assignment is internal and hence part of the person assigning it.

As far as how it relates to God, Aquinas says God is good because it is His nature to be good,

Which says nothing about whether god is good according to any standard definition of the word "good." All this argument does is redefine the word "good" so that "God is good." becomes a tautology. It's a circular argument that proves nothing about god's nature according to typical understanding. It's just a language game.

so goodness isn't whatever God arbitrarily dictates, but morality still originates in God.

Morality that has to originate from a being is not objective, by definition.

[Jasonovia]

What I'm getting out of that is "I have intrinsic value because I said so."

That's a simplistic though somewhat reasonable summarization of what I said. I said that, because human consciousness can assign value to things, and because human consciousness is part of a person, a person can use their consciousness to assign value to themselves. By definition, this value is intrinsic because this action of value assignment is internal and hence part of the person assigning it.

As far as how it relates to God, Aquinas says God is good because it is His nature to be good,

Which says nothing about whether god is good according to any standard definition of the word "good." All this argument does is redefine the word "good" so that "God is good." becomes a tautology. It's a circular argument that proves nothing about god's nature according to typical understanding. It's just a language game.

so goodness isn't whatever God arbitrarily dictates, but morality still originates in God.

Morality that has to originate from a being is not objective, by definition.

Goodness has a set meaning and God is goodness itself. So it is not a tautology because this now precludes God's nature from containing things that defy goodness (some things aren't good). Since God doesn't have a say as to what goodness entails, it's not subjective.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Except goodness does not have a set definition.

[Unhealthy2]

Goodness has a set meaning and God is goodness itself. So it is not a tautology because this now precludes God's nature from containing things that defy goodness (some things aren't good). Since God doesn't have a say as to what goodness entails, it's not subjective.

Then this definition makes the claim of god's goodness falsifiable. I claim, therefore, that the biblical god is NOT good. I further claim that, if there is a god in this universe, he is either not good, or he is not all-powerful.