thehomer:

What idea of God are you referring to? I thought you wished to go with the Christian God for starters.

You had no reason to assume. I was supporting Enigma's reasoning. Enigma is a Christian but the reason that he supplied encompasses a general theistic viewpoint.

thehomer:

You need to pick the idea of God you're referring to for me to know what I'm to deal with.

Not so. The OP did not specify either. In threads that are talking expressly about the Christian God, I am also talking about the same unless I state otherwise. But that's not the case here so let's be as vague as the OP was, alright? I wonder why you need a particular strawman of God to deal with when the OP did not present any one in particular for the sake of discussion.

thehomer:

I'm using the particular theist's idea of what God is. I don't have to believe in the Christian God to understand what Christians believe.

And is the Christian God necessarily [/b]the one that the OP refers to in his opening remark "The presence of Evil lays the biggest doubt of the existence of an OMNIBENEVOLENT God"? If not, why are you zooming in on that view of God?

thehomer:

Actually, you are doing that when you point to God as some sort of standard.

Yes, as [b]a standard for those who believe in that God. I don't know how many times I need to say that. You're an atheist so why should it be a standard for you? You think one size fits all?

thehomer:

Sure but some theists think they are objective terms and introduce God as the resolution to that idea. That is the view of many Christians. This is why I need to know your idea of God. I was proceeding on the assumption that we were discussing the Christian idea of God.

As I said, this thread is not about the Christian God, unless it was necessarily [/i]so indicated by the OP so you have no reason to assume such. The OP has been asked to define what he means by an omnibenevolent God, and what the features of this God are, that make him lay a lot of doubt on his existence due to the presence of Evil when he can rather do Good. The words colored here are yet to be defined to place this thread and consequent discussion into proper context.

thehomer:

Knowledge of what Christians believe and the words of Christian speakers.

And so you commit an inductive fallacy of hasty generalization. Well understood.

thehomer:

No it doesn't digress from the thrust of this discussion because God was being considered as a solution to the idea of good and evil.

Solution for those who believe in God. If you do not believe in (any) God, as you don't, the solution is moot to you. This is crystal clear.

thehomer:

Atheism isn't a worldview.

Is that so?
Worldview(n): The framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.

thehomer:

My point is that God isn't a good response to resolving the idea of good and evil.

How do you manage to describe what is to be used to resolve the idea of [i]good [/i]using the same word?
And of course to you, God isn't a good response to [i]anything [/i]since you don't believe he exists. This is an uncomplicated matter.

thehomer:

It isn't popular opinion but that the idea of good and evil is based on the [i]well being of conscious creatures.

Another anthropocentric view. Is it evil for a man to eat a dying woman in a case of extreme hunger in isolation (e.g. trapped underground) / famine? After all, his well being as a conscious creature has been taken care of. And there is the survival of the fittest to look at, isn't there? Tut tut.

thehomer:

So, what point are you trying to make? Is God an appropriate standard for deciding what is good and evil?

Since you have decided to be anthropocentric; then humanly speaking, there are personal standards and communal standards.

For those who hold God in their worldview, God is an appropriate objective standard for deciding what is good and evil. For those without God in their worldview, I take it that it is left to each individual bias. Either way, it is a subjective matter on the personal scale.

For a societal collection of people, with such various subjective tandards, they come to an agreement on what they will call good and evil, they establish laws and they try to stick to them.

The sophist are here again singing their usual elusive songs. . . . .

Thelstan:

You had no reason to assume. I was supporting Enigma's reasoning. Enigma is a Christian but the reason that he supplied encompasses a general theistic viewpoint.

There is no such thing as a general theistic viewpoint given the different notions of God out there. Such an idea will lead to contradictory conclusions.

Thelstan:

Not so. The OP did not specify either. In threads that are talking expressly about the Christian God, I am also talking about the same unless I state otherwise. But that's not the case here so let's be as vague as the OP was, alright? I wonder why you need a particular strawman of God to deal with when the OP did not present any one in particular for the sake of discussion.

You chose the Christian God as and example in the 52^nd post. We need a particular God for this discussion in order to avoid ambiguities. Choosing to be vague in this case is simply an invitation to evasion or the fallacy of ambiguity.

Thelstan:

And is the Christian God necessarily [/b]the one that the OP refers to in his opening remark "The presence of Evil lays the biggest doubt of the existence of an OMNIBENEVOLENT God"? If not, why are you zooming in on that view of God? 

No it isn't. I'm zooming in on that view of God because Enigma is a Christian and it is the religious view with the most adherents. Why are you trying to evade addressing the Christian God?

Thelstan:

Yes, as [b]a standard for those who believe in that God. I don't know how many times I need to say that. You're an atheist so why should it be a standard for you? You think one size fits all?

It isn't. I'm also saying that it is a poor standard so should be avoided. To demonstrate this, I need a scapeGod and I chose the Christian one for reasons mentioned above. If you do not like it, then pick another God for your example.

Thelstan:

As I said, this thread is not about the Christian God, unless it was [i]necessarily [/i]so indicated by the OP so you have no reason to assume such. The OP has been asked to define what he means by an omnibenevolent God, and what the features of this God are, that make him lay a lot of doubt on his existence due to the presence of Evil when he can rather do Good. The words colored here are yet to be defined to place this thread and consequent discussion into proper context.

He doesn't have to indicate it because the concept is applicable to the general idea of omnibenevolent Gods of which the Christian God is one. Why are you shying away from presenting the God to be discussed?

Thelstan:

And so you commit an inductive fallacy of hasty generalization. Well understood.

You actually need to show how my statement was fallacious otherwise, you'll be guilty yourself of the fallacy fallacy.

Thelstan:

Solution for those who believe in God. If you do not believe in (any) God, as you don't, the solution is moot to you. This is crystal clear.
Is that so?

Of course it is. Another point I'm making is that the idea of a God dictated morality is terrible.

Thelstan:

Worldview(n): The framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.

Wiktionary:
(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs).
(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
(loosely, rare) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
(archaic, pejorative) Disregard for moral obligation; wickedness.

oxforddictionary.com]
noun
[mass noun]

    disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
[/quote]

dictionary.com:

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So how is it a worldview?

[quote author=Thelstan:

How do you manage to describe what is to be used to resolve the idea of [i]good [/i]using the same word? 
And of course to you, God isn't a good response to [i]anything [/i]since you don't believe he exists. This is an uncomplicated matter.

You may replace its first occurrence with 'appropriate'.
Yes it isn't a good response to anything but it is a poor response to lots of questions e.g the source of morality.

Thelstan:

Another anthropocentric view. Is it evil for a man to eat a dying woman in a case of extreme hunger in isolation (e.g. trapped underground) / famine? After all, his well being as a conscious creature has been taken care of. And there is the survival of the fittest to look at, isn't there? Tut tut.

If you don't like what you call an anthropocentric view, then why don't you actually identify your view and stick to it?
It isn't necessarily evil given those circumstances.
Well what is your own view? Quit trying to be so evasive and present it for examination.

Thelstan:

Since you have decided to be anthropocentric; then humanly speaking, there are personal standards and communal standards.

And what have you decided to be?

Thelstan:

For those who hold God in their worldview, God is an appropriate objective standard for deciding what is good and evil. For those without God in their worldview, I take it that it is left to each individual bias. Either way, it is a subjective matter on the personal scale.

For a societal collection of people, with such various subjective tandards, they come to an agreement on what they will call good and evil, they establish laws and they try to stick to them.

Actually, God isn't an appropriate objective standard for deciding what good and evil is. If the God is an evil God, do we then accept the view that evil actions are now good?
You really shouldn't be evasive because what happens is that when one presents arguments against your view, you simply shift the goal posts. Why don't you select your God?

Keys nos 1 & 2 from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html   

1. Make sure your main focus is on Christians. You can 'touch' on other groups to appear even-handed, but ensure you are careful to make Christians your constant target; you don't want to get killed in a Jihad, do you? So only 'mention' the others such as Islam but then say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and 'fundamentalist' Christians.

2. Remember that you are looking for faults in other religions (Christians) not trying to defend yours so do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it's much easier to destroy than build up.

The OP did not mention the Christian God; I have not focused on the Christian God. Above all we have asked the OP to define what he means by "God"; we have also asked the OP to define what he means by "good". He has done neither! Also, his definition of "evil" is evidently inadequate.


Thus the so-called atheists* are so far only wasting everyone's time.



* More properly: evangelical atheists, militant atheists, aggressive atheists, fanatical atheists etc etc etc.

Enigma:

Keys nos 1 & 2 from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html   


The OP did not mention the Christian God; I have not focused on the Christian God. Above all we have asked the OP to define what he means by "God"; we have also asked the OP to define what he means by "good". He has done neither! Also, his definition of "evil" is evidently inadequate.


Thus the so-called atheists* are so far only wasting everyone's time.



* More properly: evangelical atheists, militant atheists, aggressive atheists, fanatical atheists etc etc etc.

And that's all. Thanks for the summary, Enigma

Mazaje,

Your comment has been successfully recognized.

---

Thehomer,

I am tired of this unfruitful back and forth. I have the RIGHT to state that I am a theist and leave it at that without you attempting to box me into a corner with definitions of a God, which is [i]my [/i]personal God and you have no business about. I, for example, am content knowing that you are an atheist and I leave it at that. There are too many brands of atheism and I don't actually care which one of them you subscribe to, knowing you are an atheist is sufficient for our discussion. And yes, I can discuss the problem here without recourse to any particular strawman representation of God e.g. a white bearded guy in the sky, for you to attack.

---

Kay 17,

The problem you are outlining here is a classic philosophical one called Theodicy. Are you familiar with it?

Extracts from a peer-reviewed Stanford University article about Leibnitz on Theodicy

[b]Open any contemporary introductory textbook of philosophy and it becomes clear that the problem of evil in contemporary philosophy[i] is thought of as an argument for atheism. [/i][/b]Since, the atheist contends, God and evil are incompatible, and evil clearly exists, there is no God. Some, thinking that the claimed incompatibility in the above argument is too strong, argue that even if the existence of God and the existence of evil prove compatible, the existence (or duration, or amount, or distribution) of evil provides us with at least strong evidence that God does not exist.

Framed in this way, the “atheistic problem of evil” invites certain sorts of responses. In particular, it invites the theist to explain how a being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good can allow evil to exist. And thus, contemporary responses to the problem of evil focus largely on presenting “theodicies”, that is, reasons why a perfect being does or might allow evils of the sort (or duration, or amount, or distribution) we find in our world.

When we turn back, however, to the works of those medieval philosophers who treat the problem of evil, the “atheistic problem” is not to be found. Since these figures believed that the arguments of natural theology demonstrated overwhelmingly the existence of God, the problem that evil presented was quite different. For them, the problem was how the existence of evil was compatible with divine moral purity or holiness. Since, they argued, God is the author of everything that exists, and evil is one of the things that exists, God is thereby the author of evil. And if someone is an “author of evil,” they are thereby implicated in the evil and thus cannot be morally pure or holy. Thus, God cannot be morally pure nor holy. Let's call this problem of evil the “holiness problem.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/

THIS is the classical problem of Theodicy. It is not an argument for atheism like Kay 17 and his bedfellows are trying to tout here. It is a "holiness" problem. And there have been generations of arguments and refutations on the topic.

You may want to read the entire article if you are interested in the centuries-old philosophical problem called the holiness problem. Nothing new here.

ETA: And yes, Thehomer, this article discusses God from a theistic viewpoint without trying to apply a single case like Christianity to a general case.

Thelstan:
. . .Thehomer,

I am tired of this unfruitful back and forth. I have the RIGHT to state that I am a theist and leave it at that without you attempting to box me into a corner with definitions of a God, which is [i]my [/i]personal God and you have no business about. I, for example, am content knowing that you are an atheist and I leave it at that. There are too many brands of atheism and I don't actually care which one of them you subscribe to, knowing you are an atheist is sufficient for our discussion. And yes, I can discuss the problem here without recourse to any particular strawman representation of God e.g. a white bearded guy in the sky, for you to attack. . . .

He is trying his usual sleight of hand and shift the goalpost tactics. Reading his post just makes one shake head at the dishonesty. Take just one example: he speaks of some God-dictated morality when so far that has not been the issue of discussion.

The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

Enigma:

The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

This was my own point of entry into the thread, and I have stressed this question to no avail!

Enigma:

In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

Wow no objective morality would make us all descend very fast into. . . anarchy. Phew God forbid.

I just read https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html and I'm in stitches.

"30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist"

Interesting! Thanks for sharing, Enigma

You're welcome Thelstan.

Actually, I want to follow up an interesting point you made with this: the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists like to quote that famous phrase of Epicurus, meanwhile they overlook the fact that Epicurus was not arguing a caae for atheism with that quote at all; similarly they like to refer to the 'Euthypro dilemma' (or a modified modern version) but they overlook that Plato assumed the existence of a god or gods with the so-called dilemma.

I beieve there is objective morality, buts its a fraud to claim that it has to have a religious origin.
You can have objective morality based on the here and now instead of based on an unknown past. What you change is the origin of morality, not morality itself. In other words, even if there is no God, as athiests believe, that doesn't mean that the individual cannot find a set of values in common with other human beings, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings and not a supernatural antecedent. If there is no God to say such and such is evil, does that mean that an individual cannot determine something as being evil?
Religion didn't invent morality, it simply and erroneneously delegated its origins to a place beyond the here and now.

It's quite funny that theists always try to make this link of god as th source of objective morality. Its surely one of the biggest whoppers ever sold. It presupposes, as stated by the two gentlemen on this thread, that athiests or cultures with non-custodial dieties would be devoid of objective morality.The history of our planet shows that it has not been so.

Even from a thiestic viewpoint, since God and his will are constant, the notion of good and evil should also reflect that quality.But does it .
The fact that morality is fluid points to its human origin.

The athiest's point of view is that god is created in the human mind ,in order to help  man  cope or provide some measure of order and purpose to his life. By so doing , Man pojects onto his creation, his own personal qualities and attributes, such as his fears, his prejudices, his hopes, his virtues, his ideals, as well as his whims.Therefore, it is not surprising that man looks to his own creation(god) as the source of the very ideals of good and evil which he(man) created.
Since the human mind is always evolving, we also find his ideals of morality(good and evil) changing to suit him.

Enigma:

You're welcome Thelstan.

Actually, I want to follow up an interesting point you made with this: the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists

Too much trouble. ANGRY Atheists works just fine for me.   That's the mental connection that I obtain when I think about how they approach religious discussions. Heck, even when I see their posts here. Obviously I'm not new on Nairaland.

Enigma:

the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists like to quote that famous phrase of Epicurus, meanwhile they overlook the fact that Epicurus was not arguing a caae for atheism with that quote at all; similarly they like to refer to the 'Euthypro dilemma' (or a modified modern version) but they overlook that Plato assumed the existence of a god or gods with the so-called dilemma.

You KNOW this!!! Atheists nowadays like to recourse to such as these but what Epicurus and Euthyphyro were arguing is NOT a case for atheism. Rather it translates to cases for a better understanding of the vast dynamics of God.

Enigma:



In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

The songs they keep singing to themselves. . . You implied that morality is objective and God is its source how so?. .

Thelstan:


Wow no objective morality would make us all descend very fast into. . . anarchy. Phew God forbid.

The very CLEAR evolution of morality throughout the history of man and the fact that it varies from place to place shows that it isnt objective no?

mazaje:

The very CLEAR evolution of morality throughout the history of man and the fact that it varies from place to place shows that it isnt objective no?

If you say morality is, overall, subjective and not objective then necessarily good [/b]and [b]evil (which terms the OP has not clearly defined) are also globally subjective. This means there is no absolutely good construct, neither is there an absolutely evil construct. Is this your point of view so we know what you are saying?

Enigma:



The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

An athiest is not island. He is part of a collective of other humans in a society. Naturally, he subcribes to moral and ethical value system of the society.A thinking human being does not need the shackles of a theological belief to subscribe to a more rational approach in recognising the merits of a collective civic consciousness and order.
Of course ,the understanding that when one is somewhat concerned about the common good, there is also a greater good to the self, even beyond or at least equal to the needs of the collective.

Do you obey law trafiic laws because you are afraid of punishment, or because safety is good for you and therefore is everyone's responsibility

plaetton:

An athiest is not island. He is part of a collective of other humans in a society. Naturally, he subcribes to moral and ethical value system of the society.A thinking human being does not need the shackles of a theological belief to subscribe to a more rational approach in recognising the merits of a collective civic consciousness and order.
Of course ,the understanding that when one is somewhat concerned about the common good, there is also a greater good to the self, even beyond or at least equal to the needs of the collective.

Do you obey law trafiic laws because you are afraid of punishment, or because safety is good for you and therefore is everyone's responsibility

So if you find yourself by some means in a society where it is perfectly alright to cannibalize on weaker people and strangers, will you join in the feasts? If not, why not?

C'mon.
Humans, whether thiests or athiests, have evolved beyond that type of behaviour. Universal codes of behaviour that respects and protects human freedom and dignity are enshrined in the laws of very every society. We have come a long way.

@thelstan

Restrictive bias?! There are many types of Gods, and i was simply specific on the God was talking about.

Why does evil apply only to humans? As i mentioned earlier, man is a conscious being with immense intellectual abilities which strives to control nature, his fate and achieve perfection, however he is limited and opposed by nature. Evil is the contradiction, the conflict and its tragic. It includes diseases, death, abortion, self-defence. While animals are trapped by simple desire to survive.

plaetton:

It's quite funny that theists always try to make this link of god as th source of objective morality. Its surely one of the biggest whoppers ever sold. It presupposes, as stated by the two gentlemen on this thread, that athiests or cultures with non-custodial dieties would be devoid of objective morality.The history of our planet shows that it has not been so.

You can say that again. . .It is really one of the biggest whoppers ever sold indeed. . .I really don't understand how and why people keep allowing them to make this baseless arguments,they even use it when providing evidence to show that their various Gods exist. . . William Craig loves using this baseless argument that the God he is talking about is the source of morality, yet most atheist debaters that engage him just let it pass with out destroying the baseless argument completely. . .He keeps saying that the God of the bible is the source of human morality, if that is true then why are do so many moral principles in the bible inspire our revulsion today . . .If morality is from God then why doesn't ALL moral values come about same way?. . . .Craig and other theist like him argue that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values don't exist, but objective moral values do exist so God exists so they feel they have made a point. . .

They leave aside the dubious first premise of tying the objectivity of morals to God's existence . The thing is how do they support his premise that objective morals DO exist? They do that by appealing to our moral intuitions. How we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like r[i]a[/i]pe, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. Channeling somehow this objective morality and saying it comes from God.

But this is exactly what makes the argument so absurd, yet people like Craig keep using it all the time without his opponents destroying his argument completely. . . .Craig's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible, and yet the bible is FILLED with God producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us today christians included as being against our moral intuitions and values. . . .

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows and then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be . .here he is described in this old book. . ." But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of "wrong" mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. Well if you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure as hell invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right. . . .I always scream at my computer when ever he makes the argument of morality coming from God and his opponents just let it pass without addressing it very well. . . .

plaetton:

C'mon.
Humans, whether thiests or athiests, have evolved beyond that type of behaviour. Universal codes of behaviour that respects and protects human freedom and dignity are enshrined in the laws of very every society. We have come a long way.

You must be kidding! There are recently discovered examples of such colonies and societies in Papua, Uganda and other places. And there may be yet undiscovered ones as well. I see how you have evaded the question by recoursing to non-existence of such a society. The point is that you are relying entirely on a fallible society to define your own evaluation of good and evil.

Kay 17:

@thelstan

Restrictive bias?! There are many types of Gods, and i was simply specific on the God was talking about.

Why does evil apply only to humans? As i mentioned earlier, man is a conscious being with immense intellectual abilities which strives to control nature, his fate and achieve perfection, however he is limited and opposed by nature. Evil is the contradiction, the conflict and its tragic. It includes diseases, death, abortion, self-defence. While animals are trapped by simple desire to survive.

Wait, I don't understand this. Diseases, death, abortion and self-defence are instances of evil?  

@Plaetton

As Thelstan has already shown, it seems you do not understand what is meant by objective morality.

Let us take another example: some societies still believe in female circumcision and happily do it --- even the persons to be circumcised happily do it. Yet westerners (and people seeking their money) keep shouting about the "evils" of what they call 'female Core gen.ital mutilation'. So which is it? Is the act "evil" or not and on what basis do we determine whether it is indeed "evil" or not?

Enigma:

@Plaetton

As Thelstan has already shown, it seems you do not understand what is meant by objective morality.

Let us take another example: some societies still believe in female circumcision and happily do it --- even the persons to be circumcised happily do it. Yet westerners (and people seeking their money) keep shouting about the "evils" of what they call 'female Core gen.ital mutilation'. So which is it? Is the act "evil" or not and on what basis do we determine whether it is indeed "evil" or not?

Thanks for a more lucid example!

Thelstan:

. . . .
Thehomer,

I am tired of this unfruitful back and forth. I have the RIGHT to state that I am a theist and leave it at that without you attempting to box me into a corner with definitions of a God, which is [i]my [/i]personal God and you have no business about.

Sure you have the right but are you afraid that under examination, the idea will be shown to be deeply flawed as an appropriate basis of morality? I'm not trying to box you into anyplace you've not boxed yourself. I do have some business with your personal God because many have committed acts on their God's command. I would simply like to know how much you know about this God and how willing you are to do his will.

Thelstan:

I, for example, am content knowing that you are an atheist and I leave it at that. There are too many brands of atheism and I don't actually care which one of them you subscribe to, knowing you are an atheist is sufficient for our discussion.

Knowing one is an atheist already answers the question on whether or not they get their idea of morality from a particular concept of God. But knowing someone is a theist isn't enough for one to have such an answer. In fact, two theists can have directly contradictory notions on what is moral.

Thelstan:

And yes, I can discuss the problem here without recourse to any particular strawman representation of God e.g. a white bearded guy in the sky, for you to attack.

. . . .

And once again, once I've clearly pointed out the numerous problems with the idea of God dictated morality, the believers tend to run away. Especially when its been pointed out that evasiveness wouldn't help.
I'm not looking for any strawman. What I'm looking for is your particular idea in order not to be in error of criticizing straw men.
Anyway, good luck to you once again.

Thelstan:

If you say morality is, overall, subjective and not objective then necessarily good [/b]and [b]evil (which terms the OP has not clearly defined) are also globally subjective. This means there is no absolutely good construct, neither is there an absolutely evil construct. Is this your point of view so we know what you are saying?

Yeah that is almost my position but not entirely. . .There are good courses and evil constructs but that also depends on the society and the time in history since its the law makers that determine for every society what is good and what is evil based on so many different reasons. . . .We have come a VERY long way and our morality has evolved a GREAT deal so much so that blacks and whites can live or coexist as one in some parts of the world today. . . Very long ago they could only co exist as masters and slaves. . . .Slavery used to be morally right  in many societies back in the days and it was encouraged in some parts of the world. . . .Sacrificing virg[i]i[/i]ns to weather Gods used to be a thing of joy back in the days. . . Stealing from your enemies and sharing their ladies used to be ok back in the days because the society saw nothing wrong in it. . . .If the society says that eating the roasted flesh of your enemies is good then it will be good unless the society says its evil then it becomes evil. . . .Many tribes used to happily sacrifice their twin babies back in the days and they saw it as a good thing and a religious duty. . . .So yes morality is not objective. . .it all depends on the place and time in history. . . .

Enigma:

He is trying his usual sleight of hand and shift the goalpost tactics. Reading his post just makes one shake head at the dishonesty. Take just one example: he speaks of some God-dictated morality when so far that has not been the issue of discussion.

The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

Wow. Just wow. Take a look at the statement you made in bold and read what you thought was me shifting the goal posts.
You're questioning the atheist's basis of morality. When I question the idea of a God based morality based on his commands, you claim the goal posts are shifting.
Things like this just make me laugh.

Thelstan:

You must be kidding! There are recently discovered examples of such colonies and societies in Papua, Uganda and other places. And there may be yet undiscovered ones as well. I see how you have evaded the question by recoursing to non-existence of such a society. The point is that you are relying entirely on a fallible society to define your own evaluation of good and evil.

You missed my point.What I meant to convey is that our consciousness has evolved to the point where we see such things as repulsive, irrespective who or when it is practiced.

thehomer:

Wow. Just wow. Take a look at the statement you made in bold and read what you thought was me shifting the goal posts.
You're questioning the atheist's basis of morality. When I question the idea of a God based morality based on his commands, you claim the goal posts are shifting.
Things like this just make me laugh.

Maybe you don't understand the topic or maybe you are just too inured to your un-objective way of thinking.

The OP says the idea of "evil" means there is no God. Well, the question to him (and to you if you are capable) is: what is the basis for regarding something as "evil" or "good" in the first place and he/you must define the "God" that is disproved by the existence of evil. We simply put the theistic point to him, that you cannot establish "good" or "evil" objectively unless you start with a premise that recognises God, Simples.

Where in that is any claim of a God-dictated morality?

If you don't understand the point simply say so and mybe some kind hearted person will explain further. You will not get away with the sleight of hand and shift the goal posts technique.

plaetton:

You missed my point.What I meant to convey is that our consciousness has evolved to the point where we see such things as repulsive, irrespective who  or when it is practiced.

Nope, I did not miss your point; rather you are missing the point. Many societies today even still including some parts of mainstream Yorubaland still see female circumcision as good. Here you are suggesting it is "evil" (from what I am making of your last post). What makes you right and them wrong?

Enigma:

Maybe you don't understand the topic or maybe you are just too inured to your un-objective way of thinking.

And yours is objective? Don't make me laugh harder.

Enigma:

The OP says the idea of "evil" means there is no God. Well, the question to him (and to you if you are capable) is: [b]what is the basis for regarding something as "evil" or "good" in the first place and he/you must define the "God" that is disproved by the existence of evil. We simply put the theistic point to him, that you cannot establish "good" or "evil" objectively unless you start with a premise that recognises God, Simples.

We regard things as good or evil based on their effects on sentient creatures.
God isn't needed but when Christian theists like yourself introduce it as a good entity, then you need to justify such a claim.

Enigma:

Where in that is any claim of a God-dictated morality?

It lies in the implication that God is needed to tell whether or not something is good or evil, moral or immoral.

Enigma:

If you don't understand the point simply say so and mybe some kind hearted person will explain further. You will not get away with the sleight of hand and shift the goal posts technique.

Maybe you need to take the time to understand the point and implications of the introduction of God into the decision of whether or not something is good or evil.

^^ I might have guessed you simply can't lift yourself to the necessary level for both understanding and objectivity/honesty.

Who introduced "God" into this discussion?

Look, for you to get going, you have to define "God", "good", and "evil". As I said before, if you can't do that you are just wasting everyone's time.

@Enigma.
I do understand the definition of objective morality.
I have also stated that morality is fluid. Infact, I have used the example you cited above many times in the past.
I am not contradicting myself.
You guys seem to be confused and are shifting the goal post to suit yourselves.
My point is simple, Morality, objective or otherwise, is not a neither a product of nor an exlusive  domain of theology.