Do You See A Good/Moral God Overall?

[Hughes]

To answer your questions from my perspective (I don't speak for all atheists).....

On what basis does life have meaning?....Life has whatever meaning you infuse into it. It can either be meaningless or meaningful, that decision is up to each individual. For me, a meaningful life is one in which you have positively influenced those around you, have attempted to encourage goodness, kindness and empathy, lived a life of integrity and have made an attempt to leave the world a better place.

And on what do you base your ethic?....Personally, I prefer the Golden Rule.

And by extension, how can you criticize a God you don't believe exists?....I am criticizing the idea and ideals of god as presented in the bible and in religion and by which I am surrounded in our society. Living in a world in which I am surrounded by believers, in a country whose system is based in part on Judeo-Christian ethics/morality supposedly handed down by god, born into a family and raised by devout LDS parents, I think that I have a right to speak regarding my views on god. I criticize fictional characters in books that I read (why would Robinson Crusoe require a slave?, what was Humbert Humbert thinking with his sick, twisted obsession with Lolita?, etc.), and so I do with this character in the bible, though admittedly the stakes are raised when speaking of this god character.

if you base your life ethic on what *you* experience and feel is right and wrong, how is it that you can justify criticizing anyone else's ethic unless you see this ethic of yours, as transcending yourself onto others and ultimately to God? At which point you've failed to justify how your ethic should supersede the ethic of others or God's......Everyone bases their life ethic on what they experience and feel is wrong or right....mormons base their ethics on the mormon god (who they experience and feel is right), muslims base their ethics on allah (who they experience and feel is right), buddhists place their ethics on buddha (who they experience and feel is right), etc. I am not trying to convince anyone to follow my ethic or that my ethic supersedes that of others (if I was, maybe I'd send people door to door to share the message regarding my superior ethics).

Very simply, I am responding to a question that was posted and I am making a simple argument in which I state that I do not think that god acts ethically. What you imply about me from reading that (which appears to be a lot, and quite off the mark) is your interpretation. A question was asked and I responded with my thoughts on the question.

As for the meaning of life in pain and suffering, you offered nothing in response. For a theist, the meaning is derived from the creator. He infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to him.....Again, the meaning of life in pain and suffering is whatever meaning we give to that life. I don't need a "creator" to infuse my life with meaning, I find it all around me and I create my own meaning. Pain and suffering happen, that's life. Sometimes there are no "meanings" to be derived....that is one of the consequences of a random universe. In fact, I give much more credence to the buddhist belief that life is suffering, and the path that leads from suffering is contained in the the four noble truths and the eightfold path, none of which require a creator (but that is another post entirely).

"Very simply, I am responding to a question that was posted and I am making a simple argument in which I state that I do not think that god acts ethically."

Right. And I am trying to point out that as an atheist (who speaks only for himself), you are positing (or projecting) an ethic (yours) as transcendent, and one that applies not just to you, but to God as well. That's my first point, that as an atheist, you have no justification for positing such a transcendent/absolute ethic.

In other words, it's similar to saying there's no God, there's no absolute moral law by which we all must abide, there's nothing, but ourselves. Yet, despite my position, you are unethical based on my personal ethics in this situation, even though my ethics don't apply to you by definition of my being an atheist and this is just my personal view.

So, in essence, yes, you are just answering a question, about a character, yet your answer is undercut by your position as an atheist.

"Sometimes there are no "meanings" to be derived....that is one of the consequences of a random universe."

Exactly! For an atheist, there is no absolute, transcendent meaning in life. Life is only what you make it. Which get's back to the previous point. You assume life is good, without justification. It's good to you, and you simply move on. But, some on this planet eat their neighbors and torture others, and they consider that "good". Yet, you have no justification to criticize them anymore than you have justification to criticize God, since you don't believe in an absolute/transcendent morality. In essence, what is good to you is only what is good to you, it may not be to anyone else.

Which is why I asked in the beginning, do women have a moral right to abort? It exposes the feeling that you indeed operate under the feeling that ethics transcends yourself.

[Hughes]

Why couldn't someone say the same thing, except appeal to the idea that all life on this planet is related? Or in other words:

"For a nontheist, the meaning is derived from the observation that all life is related. This interconnectedness infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to it."

One can say anything he wishes. The question is does he have justification to apply that to others?

[Walden]

"Very simply, I am responding to a question that was posted and I am making a simple argument in which I state that I do not think that god acts ethically."

Right. And I am trying to point out that as an atheist (who speaks only for himself), you are positing (or projecting) an ethic (yours) as transcendent, and one that applies not just to you, but to God as well. That's my first point, that as an atheist, you have no justification for positing such a transcendent/absolute ethic.

In other words, it's similar to saying there's no God, there's no absolute moral law by which we all must abide, there's nothing, but ourselves. Yet, despite my position, you are unethical based on my personal ethics in this situation, even though my ethics don't apply to you by definition of my being an atheist and this is just my personal view.

So, in essence, yes, you are just answering a question, about a character, yet your answer is undercut by your position as an atheist.

"Sometimes there are no "meanings" to be derived....that is one of the consequences of a random universe."

Exactly! For an atheist, there is no absolute, transcendent meaning in life. Life is only what you make it. Which get's back to the previous point. You assume life is good, without justification. It's good to you, and you simply move on. But, some on this planet eat their neighbors and torture others, and they consider that "good". Yet, you have no justification to criticize them anymore than you have justification to criticize God, since you don't believe in an absolute/transcendent morality. In essence, what is good to you is only what is good to you, it may not be to anyone else.

Which is why I asked in the beginning, do women have a moral right to abort? It exposes the feeling that you indeed operate under the feeling that ethics transcends yourself.

And again, you are helping me make my point. Mormons abide by the ethics of a mormon god, muslims by the ethics of allah, buddhists by the ethics of buddha, etc. We each have a set of ethics that we consider to be "transcendent" or "eternal"....just because mine is not associated with an organized religion does it make it less valid? Just because yours can be associated with an organized religion does it make it more valid? We both consider our ethics to be superior to one another's. Just because I have derived my morals from a mixture of religious upbringing, a study of the human condition, examination of the moral codes of civilizations throughout history, etc., does it make it less valid then the moral code that you have derived from mormonism? I happen to think that my moral code is superior, the difference being that i do not try to force my moral code on others.

I told you that I base my ethics on one of christ's teachings....the golden rule. Because I don't worship christ, does that make the ethics less valid?

The original question was "do you see a good/moral god overall?" I answered the question that I do not see a good/moral god. This is based on my 24 years in the LDS church, 4 years spent at a mainstream chrisitan university where I studied mainstream christianity (not knocking mormonism, which i consider just as "christian" as other mainstream christian religions), and a number of years studying, reading and examining the nature of god. So, my answer is based on my simple understanding of the nature of god, refined through the prism of my own sense of morality. I'm not sure why you are calling me out and not questioning the moral compass of every other poster here. Despite what you may think, even the mormon sitting next to you in sacrament has a different morality than you have for yourself, even though both of you derive that morality through the teachings of a mormon god.

Do you believe that atheists can be moral or ethical people, or are we all just selfish, uncaring, self-centered individuals unknowingly working is satan's service?

[Eldwynn]

One can say anything he wishes. The question is does he have justification to apply that to others?

Are you saying that justification along such lines does not exist? That was kind of my question.

[Hughes]

I'm sorry you feel like I'm "calling you out..." that's not my intention.

In one sense, I'm using your position to make a point about all atheists.

You said, " Mormons abide by the ethics of a mormon god, muslims by the

ethics of allah, buddhists by the ethics of buddha, etc. We each have a

set of ethics that we consider to be "transcendent" or "eternal"....just

because mine is not associated with an organized religion does it make it

less valid?"

Here's an interesting point. Mormons (of which I'm not one by the way),

Muslims, Buddhists etc. all posit an absolute ethic, and organized

religions in general all posit an absolute ethical God.

Atheists, by definition can't do this. Why is that? Why can't an atheist

posit and absolute ethic that applies to all? Simply because if they were

to do that, they would be positing an absolute law giver, for how else

would their ethic apply to all people, unless there was an absolute

creator of said ethical law?

In essence, for an atheist to posit an absolute ethic, they are positing

an absolute God or law giver.

The theist points to the fact that all men "feel" like there's an a

absolute law that everyone feels they must follow (do not murder and so

forth, or in your case the golden rule), as evidence that God does indeed

exist after all.

For you to say, "It's my opinion that God/god is unethical" is evidence in

and of itself that God does indeed exist based on your applying an

absolute/transcendent ethic to someone other than yourself.

This isn't a judgement nor analysis of your personal ethic or if you or

someone else can be ethical or not. It's a big picture look at the basis

for atheistic criticisms and how they break down when logically applied.

[Eldwynn]

Atheists, by definition can't do this. Why is that? Why can't an atheist

posit and absolute ethic that applies to all? Simply because if they were

to do that, they would be positing an absolute law giver, for how else

would their ethic apply to all people, unless there was an absolute

creator of said ethical law?

In essence, for an atheist to posit an absolute ethic, they are positing

an absolute God or law giver.

The theist points to the fact that all men "feel" like there's an a

absolute law that everyone feels they must follow (do not murder and so

forth, or in your case the golden rule), as evidence that God does indeed

exist after all.

For you to say, "It's my opinion that God/god is unethical" is evidence in

and of itself that God does indeed exist based on your applying an

absolute/transcendent ethic to someone other than yourself.

This isn't a judgement nor analysis of your personal ethic or if you or

someone else can be ethical or not. It's a big picture look at the basis

for atheistic criticisms and how they break down when logically applied.

People can appeal to whatever they want. You may make your moral decisions because you believe that god is telling you to. I make my moral decisions because I want to reduce human suffering (for example).

You can't say that you have some sort of unmovable standard from your morals (and point to the bible for example) because you most definitely do NOT get your morals from your bible. You pick and choose- just like I do. When it comes to morals, there is really no difference.

The fact that we have a "feeling" is evidence of nothing but neurons firing in our heads. That this "feeling" is present in all of us, just shows that we are all, indeed, human (and we don't have a neurological disorder). It certainly doesn't prove god exists. Evolution is the best (And only) explanation for the similar morality in all humans. The fact that we know the rough area of the brain that facilitates this is icing on the cake.

Neither does my ability to hypothetically consider a Mormon concept of god (who is made in our image) and conclude that he is immoral based on MY arbitrary standards (to reduce human suffering).

Some people attacked my ideas because their arbitrary standards were not to reduce human suffering (But something about worship and obedience). Some others proposed that somehow the suffering reduces human suffering in the long run. Obviously, I disagree with both of them.

In summary, just because you THINK your morals are coming from a never shifting foundation, doesn't mean they are.

[Eldwynn]

triple post

[Rivers]

People can appeal to whatever they want. You may make your moral decisions because you believe that god is telling you to. I make my moral decisions because I want to reduce human suffering (for example).

You can't say that you have some sort of unmovable standard from your morals (and point to the bible for example) because you most definitely do NOT get your morals from your bible. You pick and choose- just like I do. When it comes to morals, there is really no difference.

ut worship and obedience). Some others proposed that somehow the suffering reduces human suffering in the long run. Obviously, I disagree with both of them.

In summary, just because you THINK your morals are coming from a never shifting foundation, doesn't mean they are.

I agree. When I read the Bible, I try to keep in my mind that these people lived a long time ago in a completely different culture. Their understanding of morals and their understanding of science was very different.

I used to wonder why God, being an all knowing being, couldn't tell us about the germ theory, DNA, electricity, etc. But then I realized that that would take all the fun out of science and learning.

I think it is the same way with morals. It think we're supposed to figure those out on our own as well. I imagine a God as a parent who wants us to learn things on our by making mistakes. And we humans have sure made a lot of mistakes.

[Jeff K.]

People can appeal to whatever they want. You may make your moral decisions because you believe that god is telling you to. I make my moral decisions because I want to reduce human suffering (for example).

You can't say that you have some sort of unmovable standard from your morals (and point to the bible for example) because you most definitely do NOT get your morals from your bible. You pick and choose- just like I do. When it comes to morals, there is really no difference.

The fact that we have a "feeling" is evidence of nothing but neurons firing in our heads. That this "feeling" is present in all of us, just shows that we are all, indeed, human (and we don't have a neurological disorder). It certainly doesn't prove god exists. Evolution is the best (And only) explanation for the similar morality in all humans. The fact that we know the rough area of the brain that facilitates this is icing on the cake.

Neither does my ability to hypothetically consider a Mormon concept of god (who is made in our image) and conclude that he is immoral based on MY arbitrary standards (to reduce human suffering).

Some people attacked my ideas because their arbitrary standards were not to reduce human suffering (But something about worship and obedience). Some others proposed that somehow the suffering reduces human suffering in the long run. Obviously, I disagree with both of them.

In summary, just because you THINK your morals are coming from a never shifting foundation, doesn't mean they are.

Based on your post any evidence can be reduced to nothing more than some neurons going off in our brains. You can apply the same disdain to any other observable data and dismiss it. Making your point fallcious in supporting your view.

Athiests have no objective position from which to create morals, nor do they search for an objective position from which morals can be derived. However they are very good at "borrowing" the morals others searching for an objective have encoded.

In summary, just because you THINK your morals are coming from a never shifting foundation, doesn't mean they are

And with equal quantitative and qualitative magnanimity it doesn't mean they aren't either.

[Hughes]

Are you saying that justification along such lines does not exist? That was kind of my question.

Correct. Atheists have no justification for extending any sort of universal ethic to anyone else.

People can appeal to whatever they want. You may make your moral decisions because you believe that god is telling you to. I make my moral decisions because I want to reduce human suffering (for example).

You can't say that you have some sort of unmovable standard from your morals (and point to the bible for example) because you most definitely do NOT get your morals from your bible. You pick and choose- just like I do. When it comes to morals, there is really no difference.

The fact that we have a "feeling" is evidence of nothing but neurons firing in our heads. That this "feeling" is present in all of us, just shows that we are all, indeed, human (and we don't have a neurological disorder). It certainly doesn't prove god exists. Evolution is the best (And only) explanation for the similar morality in all humans. The fact that we know the rough area of the brain that facilitates this is icing on the cake.

Neither does my ability to hypothetically consider a Mormon concept of god (who is made in our image) and conclude that he is immoral based on MY arbitrary standards (to reduce human suffering).

Some people attacked my ideas because their arbitrary standards were not to reduce human suffering (But something about worship and obedience). Some others proposed that somehow the suffering reduces human suffering in the long run. Obviously, I disagree with both of them.

In summary, just because you THINK your morals are coming from a never shifting foundation, doesn't mean they are.

Eldwynn,

For the Theist, there is a logical connection between God and laws, whether moral or physical. We understand that the creator is the source for all that exists, including physical (natural) laws and moral laws. The natural laws are universal and everyone is effected by them (such as gravity for example), so also we think it's logical to conclude that moral laws are no different, that they too apply to everyone equally. To call this view arbitrary is unjustified. It is justified and logical and cohesive that if there is an almighty creator, responsible for all of existence, then he must also be logically responsible for a moral law as well.

Similarly, just as the natural laws of the universe appear to be constant (gravity always seems to be pulling about the same), it's also logical to conclude by extension that the moral laws the creator has set up are also constant (that all life has value, and always will have value for example).

For the Atheist, the moral law is arbitrary, and made up based on his/her own thinking. And cannot be applied to anyone else but themselves. Nor can any of their extensions be absolute. For example, your moral of "reducing suffering" contains in it the assumption that life has value, and that reducing suffering is good. However, your moral isn't superior to anyone else, much less those who think that life has no value, and that suffering is good in and of itself.

Now, you can appeal to other things such as "all nature" or evolutionary this or that. But, so can the opposing views. Thus the Atheistic position is rendered "personal" and arbitrary. And as I said before, when the Atheist starts to apply his/her moral to another, they are positing a universal morality, which supports the idea of the existence of a moral law giver. I don't think I said, "proves" a moral law giver.

In essence, unless the Atheist says, "this is my moral and it only applies to me, and I can't legitimately criticize anyone else's morals", then he/she is supporting the idea that there is such a thing as an universal moral law that applies to everyone.

Now, does this mean when David committed adultery, an atheist can't point to that story as an example of an immoral act? Of course not. That's not my point at all.

My point is that an atheist can't point to the sin of adultery as a immoral act based on their morals alone, in order to have a legitimate criticism they have to appeal to God's universal moral law, which is self defeating for the atheist.

[cion]

I see an imperfect God that wishes us well and helps where possible. I believe in a God that is more powerful than me but not all-powerful. **** happens and nobody can control it. Not even God.