Absolute Morality, Absolute Moronity

I’ve always found that an inane little argument. In part because it would appear that they’re using a different shade of “absolute.” Let me organize my thoughts on this matter and write more later.

I think Christians can argue that God is responsible for absolute morality because the bible lays down very specific and basic moral rules. I don’t think you can really say that about language or nutrition.

Regarding the argument itself, claiming that non-christians can’t make judgements because they don’t have christian morality is a bit like saying, “you can’t wear our club neck-tie unless you’re in our club”. The rule only applies to club members. Non members don’t care about breaking the rule. As a non-christian, I can have your morality if I want, you just tell me I can’t, and I don’t care.

Perhaps one answer to this is to simply say that experience demonstrates otherwise. To say that Sam Harris shouldn’t care if Muslim suicide bombers kill innocent civilians after he writes a book that passionately demonstrates why we should care is a bit silly. Obviously we do care and non-believers seem to generally live good lives and do not make the news every night. That alone should beenough to make people like Collins feel like something is quite wrong with their thesis – yet it seems to me that they like the argument so much that they aren’t willing to part with it despite all evidence to the contrary.

On your contents page you have a quote from Freidrich Nietschze. In his book “beyond good and evil” (what I have read so far) he supports the theory that the only reason for living is “a will to power” and doesn’t believe in absolute morals. But of course he is only one person. I think there are atheists who try to live morally. I am a christian but I believe that faith without works is dead

and that true christianity is more about what is going on in your head and your heart than formalities and labels. I think there will be “christians” who aren’t in heaven and many people who aren’t christians who are. And I don’t think that God will necessarily allow people who have lived horrible lives and who are saved at the end of their lives to go to Heaven. Also I have a question

I have been wondering this for a while and you probably know, or at least can speak for yourself. How come many atheists seem to dislike or be the most angry at Christianity of all the religions to choose from. I have theories but I would like to actually hear from somebody. Anyway, I have left a lot of notes, but you seem open to discourse.

The problem with an absolute morality without God is that there must be some authority which decides on that morality. From a non-believer vantage, all morality is relative based upon the elected god’s ‘decree.’ I think it would be MORE correct to say, ‘Without an absolute authority there is no absolute morality.’

The problem with making your argument about an ‘absolute language’ is that there is no absolute language. Phrases, idioms, and emphasis change everything in communication. Language is very relative. Also, the problem with nutrition is similar. While all human bodies need certain minerals and vitamins depending on the body and environment they made need different quantities or additional elements.

So, again, nutrition is relative… to a degree. Going back to absolute morality. Supposing the the Christian God exists. The absolute being (you know, you were Catholic), His moral commands for mankind would be absolute. Thus it can exist under the Christian God. HOWEVER, to say it cannot exist if the Christian God is a lie, is a lie.

Absolute morality, restating, requires an absolute authority. As a side note. I read you page on why you left the Catholic Church. I am sure there are other reasons, but I did want to mention that God does take into count the knowledge we were presented with. Also, the Catechism says that Faith is first a gift from God. So it also comes down to us listening to that inner voice, and using reason.

No theist seems to realize morality is, in effect, relative. Meta-ethic is relative. A theist CHOOSING which book to base his/her morality on is no different than an atheist simply recognizing there that ethical properties (i.e., “good” and “bad”) are not objective properties (e.g., states of affairs outside the mind). They’re subjective properties. That’s reality. If theists don’t like it, tough.It’s not about what we WANT to be true; it’s about what IS true. There is no creator god, we all know that, so let’s stop HOPING for one and mistaking the hoped-for for the actual. Trying to push one’s personal prejudice forward while under the guise of faith (i.e., willful ignorance) is the most unethical course of action.

For an atheist to say “Muslim suicide bombing is wrong” is to invoke a sense of morality. It is to say there is a scale of right and wrong and that suicide bombing is at one end. If there is no absolute good, i.e. one end of the scale then there is no scale at all! Christians believe God is the absolute good, we believe he is all-good. You cannot have a sense of morality without an all-good!

I was told that “Only Bad People get tatoos.” I now have a snake-in-the-grass and I am still a good person. Must admit that being older helps us to be good. Living in rural america and far from people also helps. How could satan tempt Jesus in the wilderness when there is nothing really there? You still are as good as ever. I do miss you and a few others for good reading and thinking.