May 29, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Adelphe wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 2:21PM, Kwinters wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 1:02PM, Adelphe wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 12:54PM, Kwinters wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 12:48PM, mainecaptain wrote:

May 28, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Adelphe wrote:

On the evidence of the Bible, whatever is moral is Yahweh.  Without Yahweh, you couldn't even define the word.  The only reason why you can even attempt to do so, is because of the Imago Dei in you--who, of course, are fallen.

 
That is obviously not true. I am always stunned how Christians defend evil. As long as it is their god doing the evil. Unbelievable.

Also, I disagree that without Yahweh people could not define morality.

Morality, simply defined means: differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).

It doesn't say what the basis of that differentiation is, only that differentiation takes place.

On what empirical evidence can Ade defend her assertion that without Yahweh such differentiation cannot exist? 

Let's just take the simple proposition of causing other pain is quite a different thing from causing someone happiness.

What does Yahweh contribute to the observation that causing others pain and seeing a deterioration in my relationship with them is not a good thing and differentiate between that and saying making others happy and seeing my relations with them improve is a good thing?

???

To the latter, God is benevolent. We define "good" by God Himself.

To the former, can you please provide a secular definition of "good" and "right" and "bad" and "wrong"?

By since you cannot say what the nature of God is, you also cannot say what 'good' is.

I just said what God's nature is:  good.  "Why do you call me good?  Only God is good."

This seemed more appropriate over here so I've started this thread for Ade. 

Enjoy!



 

IMO, good to evil is a spectrum, and any given act can fall in various parts of the spectrum.  The good extreme is helping someone else with their permission; the evil extreme is harming someone else against their will.  The reason that helping someone else with their permission is better than helping someone else without it is that different people have different ideas of what 'help' involves, so it is quite possible that your idea of help is unwelcome to the person being helped.  It is thus best to get permission before helping if there is time to do so.  In a similar way harming someone else with their permission (as in a sado-masochistic relationship) is not quite as bad as harming them against their will.

My morality is based on empathy - since I empathize with others, I want them to be well and so I often try to help them.  No god is necessary for empathy to exist and be acted on, so this is a purely secular definition of good and evil.  I doubt Adelphe will *agree* with that definition, but her agreement really isn't necessary - the definition exists whether she agrees with it or not, and thus good and evil can clearly be defined without recourse to a god.  I'm quite sure that many other secular definitions of good and evil exist, as I have run into many over the years.  Her claim is clearly false.

Here is my contribution

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6DW0e70DF0

Where does Hitchens get his sense of right and wrong?

May 29, 2012 -- 6:54PM, JCarlin wrote:

"Good" and "Right" and "Bad" and "Wrong" are necessarily defined in the context of the referent society.  In a secular society, that which promotes the welfare of members of the secular society is good and that which diminishes the welfare in any way such as restricting their educational needs, their freedom of choice of companions, and ideas of right and wrong is bad.  In behavioral terms, it is generally right to respect all who by their behavior do not forfeit it, including their ideas which may disagree with the norm for a secular society.  It is considered wrong to restrict activities of others that cause no harm to others in the secular society. 

In a secular society there is no absolute authority on behavior,  even legal and political rules are subject to review and modification by a consensus of the society. 

I am absolutely agreed with you, and perhaps you have touch a point that concerns to all of us and the quality of life we need and deserve as habitants of Earth, the only place and home we will have and live until  our last breath.  Good and Right, Bad or Wrong should  not be conditioned to be an atheist or a theist, but to be  human and what affect badly our lives as humans is to be considered Bad and Wrong and whatever   contribute to make our lives much better in sense of well being and happyness,  it should  be considered Good an Right, the rest babbling about this subject is pure garbage and shall be thrown to the garbage   where it belongs.  

It is true that life as we know it now,  is far apart from being  perfect, but it is not futil to try to enhance humanistic behaviour instead of religious or not religious, that should be left apart,  as a right that concern only  to each individual in particular and not to humanity as a whole.

We have needs - breathing, eating, drinking, shelter, company, sex, status, protection / defense, freedom from injury, disability, disease, survival of our children &c.  We call the satisfaction of these needs 'good' and their denial 'bad'.

We have genetic moral tendencies (ie common to all cultures) - I can repeat the list if anyone wants - and on top of that we have upbringing, culture, education and life experiences to further mold our moral views.  We call things that agree with our moral views 'good' and those that disagree, 'bad'.

It's possible to satisfy needs in ways that conflict with our moral views, and we differ in our moral views, so judgments of 'good' and 'bad' are situational, and for public purposes either consensual or derived by methods consensually agreed.