Christian... Logic?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't click, I had better things to do, like trim my toenails.

[freeservant]

Since Marks believe there is no Commander God (i.e., a God who is perfectly good in essence and issues commands that are good), the ground for morality are gone. The issues then become twofold, for me:

1. The primary issue is the existence of God. There are two options: either God exists or God does not exist. (Marks, like myself, is interested in the existence of the theistic God and not, e.g., polytheism’s multiple gods and avatars.)
2. If God exists, then we have grounds for morality. If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.

Marks then writes in answer to the question: How then shall we live?

I can agree with Marks that the only atheism worth holding is hard atheism. In that we are both dissatisfied with the New Atheist softies.

http://www.johnpiippo.com/2010/08/soft- ... heism.html

Why live like there is morality if there is no god ?

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

If one is living under a moral construct then the existence of God is established by implication.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why live like there is morality if there is no god ?

Because it maintains peace in the community and tends to provide for one's longer life.  After all, if you break into my house, you're leaving feet-first.

If one is living under a moral construct then the existence of God is established by implication.

Is that the god who advocates for genocide and eternal torture?  Mmkay.

[Byronazriel]

Most Christians I know operate under the ussumption that if God does it, that MAKES it moral.

Thus in a very real sense Christian morality couldn't exist without the Christian God.

[DropLogic]

http://www.johnpiippo.com/2010/08/soft- ... heism.html

Why live like there is morality if there is no god ?

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

If one is living under a moral construct then the existence of God is established by implication.

This amazingly flawed notion assumes that morality somehow comes from god...I'm a much more moral person than a lot of my religious friends, and I have never believed in god...ever.  Right and wrong is defined by your parents and peer influence, and the governing body at that point in time.  (Time is an important distinction because back in JC's day, it was cool to throw big rocks at people until they died.)

[freeservant]

Most Christians I know operate under the ussumption that if God does it, that MAKES it moral.

Thus in a very real sense Christian morality couldn't exist without the Christian God.

I am a moral absolutist who would say that morality is objectively true as they are part of God's character and thus the immanence of morality in our moral compass is a deductively valid reason we are not amoral creatures that have no compassion or transcendent altruistic nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Why do I now accept hard atheism? I was struck by salient parallels between religion and morality, especially that both avail themselves of imperatives or commands, which are intended to apply universally. In the case of religion, and most obviously theism, these commands emanate from a Commander; “and this all people call God,” as Aquinas might have put it. The problem with theism is of course the shaky grounds for believing in God. But the problem with morality, I now maintain, is that it is in even worse shape than religion in this regard; for if there were a God, His issuing commands would make some kind of sense. But if there is no God, as of course atheists assert, then what sense could be made of there being commands of this sort? In sum, while theists take the obvious existence of moral commands to be a kind of proof of the existence of a Commander, i.e., God, I now take the non-existence of a Commander as a kind of proof that there are no Commands, i.e., morality.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue80/80marks.htm

As distasteful as this may be for the soft-atheist I see it as the only logical consequence of a godless pitiless universe where death an privation are the only entailment's the right thinking atheist should have in order to be a proper soulless meatpuppet product of naturalism.  Everything is already determined from T=0.

[PoopShoot]

I am a moral absolutist who would say that morality is objectively true as they are part of God's character and thus the immanence of morality in our moral compass is a deductively valid reason we are not amoral creatures that have no compassion or transcendent altruistic nature.

Christian morality is neither objective nor absolute.  Morality in a Christian worldview is subjective to God's whims, and has changed.  Moreover, ALL forms of morality include mitigating and extenuating circumstances, meaning NO system of morality is absolute.  It's wrong to kill people, unless...  It's wrong to steal, unless...  It's wrong to rape people, unless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

As distasteful as this may be for the soft-atheist I see it as the only logical consequence of a godless pitiless universe where death an privation are the only entailment's the right thinking atheist should have in order to be a proper soulless meatpuppet product of naturalism.  Everything is already determined from T=0.

Oh my, It's like a No True Scotsman on an outgroup.  No True Irishman, perhaps?

[Byronazriel]

I am a moral absolutist

So you believe that Robin Hood is a bad guy?

[Asmodean]

I am a moral absolutist

So you believe that Robin Hood is a bad guy?

A fictional bad guy, but a bad guy still.

A thief is a thief.  

[Byronazriel]

He stole from thieves, and assholes. Still a thief, yes, but better than someone who steals candy from babies and purses from old ladies.

I guage morality on a basic rpg style graph: Good to Evil, and Lawful to Chaotic.

I'd put Robin Hood as varying between Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Neutral. Depending on the tale.

Not Evil = Not a bad guy. Though you can be an asshole without being evil, and you can be evil without being an asshole.

[DropLogic]

I am a moral absolutist who would say that morality is objectively true as they are part of God's character and thus the immanence of morality in our moral compass is a deductively valid reason we are not amoral creatures that have no compassion or transcendent altruistic nature.

Would you like some dressing on that word salad?
Morality evolved just like we did.  You hurt someone...there are consequences from the people who care about that person.  Morality came from people pushing limits, and majorities decided what was acceptable or not.  If god was responsible for morality in humans...it would not have changed over the last 2000 years.

[Asmodean]

I guage morality on a basic rpg style graph: Good to Evil, and Lawful to Chaotic.

I use the common social scale. Law breaker = bad. Law-abiding citizen = good.

It has little to do with evil, which I view as more of a psychological thing than social. Goes to motives, not effects.

For instance, Robin Hood may well not be evil while still being a bad guy.

[PoopShoot]

I guage morality on a basic rpg style graph: Good to Evil, and Lawful to Chaotic.

I use the common social scale. Law breaker = bad. Law-abiding citizen = good.

It has little to do with evil, which I view as more of a psychological thing than social. Goes to motives, not effects.

For instance, Robin Hood may well not be evil while still being a bad guy.

The scales are the same essential things with different labels.  Law/chaos gauges whether a character can follow rules/laws, whereas good/evil addresses motives, such as whether killing made the character feel happy.

[Asmodean]

The scales are the same essential things with different labels.  Law/chaos gauges whether a character can follow rules/laws, whereas good/evil addresses motives, such as whether killing made the character feel happy.

Obviously, they are not the same since you've managed to equate a bad guy to evil.

[PoopShoot]

The scales are the same essential things with different labels.  Law/chaos gauges whether a character can follow rules/laws, whereas good/evil addresses motives, such as whether killing made the character feel happy.

Obviously, they are not the same since you've managed to equate a bad guy to evil.

How?