Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#421
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
My favorite is, "treat the foreigner who lives among you like the native-born.  Remember that you were captives in Egypt..."

I'm not sure how that squares with "permanent multi-generational ownership".
#422
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
In Orthodoxy, we have a theological concept called synergism that explains it. 

A cooperation or co-working with God.

Or to put it differently, to abide in Christ.

If you have questions on how to do this, you could always become an Orthodox Catechumen and get you some educating.

#423
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Concepts are as concepts do.

And catechumen is a lovely word.

And orthodox educating is as orthodox educating does...... ( Does it come with tea and cake?)

And GOD principle maybe.

We can but speculate.
#424
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Mopac
 People that believe in a loving God are stupid. it is intelligent man that has made life livable.
Einstein is smart.
'The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
#425
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@FLRW
In fairness, believing in a loving god doesn't make people stupid. People go from belief to non-belief (and vice versa) all the time and there is absolutely no change in their IQ. 
#426
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Doesn't a stupid person think that a loving God created pediatric cancer?  Atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles. They often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, including involvement in movements to abolish slavery and contribute to relief efforts associated with human suffering. The converse is also true: religion has led people to commit a long litany of horrendous crimes, from God’s command to Moses to slaughter the Midianites, men, women, boys and non-virginal girls, through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, innumerable conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Moslems, and terrorists who blow themselves up in the confident belief that they are going straight to paradise.
#427
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@FLRW
Doesn't a stupid person think that a loving God created pediatric cancer? 
No, not necessarily, but the idea is certainly stupid.
Topic's author
#428
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.
Moral intuition?

Logically coherent? Sure, go ahead. I don't believe you can without God, so prove me wrong.
The critical conceit here is your claim that you follow a universal, unchanging moral code.

The decalogue is NOT unchanging.  It is interpreted in different ways at different times.
It is, except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles. 

For example, if you beat your servant and they die in LESS than three days, apparently that's "murder".
That is an Old Covenant Mosaic law, and although it teaches a lesson and is related to the Ten, it is not one of the Ten, since 'killing' or murder was an intentional and malicious act; discipline was not. The ANE dealt with punishment for wrongdoing differently than we do today. Pain as a punishment was a deterrent. It taught the person right and wrong. And Israel did not have a costly prison system, a system that increases the taxpayer's debt load in supporting prisoners by the millions for years. Instead, a slave would live by the household, rules and if he broke them,, he was disciplined, just like the son was meant to be, by the rod. That was their deterrent system. That is how crimes and disobedience were dealt with. But a 'master' was not allowed to get carried away with the punishment. The law had safeguards against that, freedom for the slave. In numerous passages, we see how slaves were treated and how God wanted Israel to treat all people.     


However, if you beat your servant and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's NOT "murder".

However, if you beat a fellow citizen and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's "murder" again.

Different rules for different people in different situations.  Not universal.  Not unchanging.
Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): [a] 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. [b] 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

[a] The punishment was life for life, if the 'slave' died. That would be a deterrent in preventing mistreatment. Any permament damage to the slave would also secure their freedom. It was not in the best interest of the man to mistreat a slave. But not only this, the compensation was greater than ANE standards and some would argue higher than some of our standards today in compensation. 

"...typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth..."

As pointed out before, beating with a rod was the same punishment a free man would receive for a wrong. The penal system was far different than today in which the whole society meets the huge cost of incarceration. Thus, a rod was more practical in that respect. It just does not meet the politically correct standards of today. Where it was established, a life was required for a life. This too would decrease the cost of looking after someone for years on end, and the understanding would cause most to consider the cost of taking a life. 

As stated, the rod was to be applied to the back, not the face or other parts of the body.

[b] Per Glenn Miller once again, one to two days was considered enough to determine whether the direct cause of death was the master.   

'Property' had a different connotation in biblical context as it does in the terms of chattel slavery, as I have documented before. Yes, it was a job for life, but property did not mean the right to do with a person an inhumane act or dispose of as pleased. Property had economic connotations just as we, when on the grounds of the company we work for are considered part of the property.

"'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor)" 

Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): [a] 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. [a] 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.


Not to mention, the decalogue is NOT original.  It cannot be the origin of morality because there are much older examples of similar codes.
The Ten are God setting the record straight for humanity, so there was to be no doubt. What code and what laws are you speaking of?


Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

These moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.
Are you equating animals and all mammals to human beings?

So what if they protect themselves, their families, and their property? How does that make it good? It just is. 

These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.
That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias. 
Topic's author
#429
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You see, if you deny God's moral commands then life becomes unlivable.
Not quite.

My breath would seem to contradict your claim.

You see, if you deny god($) moral commands then you are forced to THINK FOR YOURSELF AND NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
And what makes your limited, biased thinking any better than your neighbours if everything is relative and subjective? Why is protect yourself, your family, and your property good when your neighbour is doing the same, and he believes it is best to eliminate you and your family and take your property? And the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world. 

How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
#430
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?

P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)

P.S.S.S. I think you're dropping the argument: post 365.  You called me out on this thread..are we done?

Topic's author
#431
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
But if you reject (or simply ignore) BRAHMAN (or NOUMENON), a necessary being, what is the objective standard of appeal?
An appeal to brute fact! Wow!

You keep speaking of this noumenal self as a necessary being, Brahman, an unknowable being. What exactly is Brahman like --> "Unknowable!"

You claim Brahman. How do you know this god exists and is not wishful thinking? What has this god revealed for you to know of its existence? Is this god a personal being? Not according to some Hindus. 

"Brahman, a term used in Hinduism for God Almighty, creator of entire cosmos was always impersonal, a source of magnanimous primordial cosmic energy beyond human comprehension."

"The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle.[10] In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda (truth-consciousness-bliss) as well as having a form (Sakar)[11][12] and as the unchanging, permanent, highest reality.[13][14][note 1][note 2]"

Even in Hinduism, some believe Brahman is a personal being while others do not, depending on the school of thought, which again brings to mind the question of how does anyone know? But what has the Vedas or Upanishads given humanity to confirm Brahman? Far, far less evidence than the Judeo-Christian God, and a god that contradicts the God of Christianity. 

And Kant's idea of the noumenon begs the question of how he knows this?

"In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often identified with or associated with the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (in Kant's German, Ding an sich). However, the nature of the relationship between the two is not made explicit in Kant's work, and remains a subject of debate among Kant scholars as a result."

So, what the "men of Athens" (Athenians) worshiped as the unknown God the Apostle Paul made known to them. 

For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

Starting with human thoughts as the point of reference to the noumenon gets you no closer to the truth, thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us. That is, ontologically speaking, in regard to the truth about the universe, the truth about us, and the truth concerning morality. So you can think the noumenon is necessary but you are still not there unless this infinitely omniscient Being chooses to reveal what is the case to you. If this infinite Being is not conscious or personal you are left with a force or mysterious source of speculation.  Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything. The Christian God meets the requirements of knowing like no other religious system of thought. 

"Kant had to develop a philosophical perspective that destroys the intelligibility of any objective knowledge at all. This reflects the desperation of those who intellectually oppose the faith. They would rather be reduced to subjectivism (eg., the projection of the unknowable "noumenal" self) than to acknowledge their responsibility before God, whom they very well know and cannot escape."
Van Til Apologetics, Readings and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 351.  

You don't have one.
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.
How has this been revealed to you?

It becomes a preference.
EXACTLY LIKE YOUR PREFERENCE IN YOUR CHOICE OF GOD($).
First, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?

Your "justification" of your GOD($) is de facto "justification" for your ("invisible") moral code.
By necessity in making sense of morality, yes. I invite you to make sense of why what you believe, morally speaking, is any better than that of anyone else, unless you have an objective, omniscient, revelation. Go ahead!

(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a de facto OPINION.
Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe. 

There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable. It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?

It becomes a preference.
Just like your preference for a particular god($).
The evidence is convincing and justifiable. Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too. 

How does what you like (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?
Well, I certainly wouldn't trust you to tell me my likes and dislikes.
You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.

It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.
The decalogue doesn't resolve these disagreements.
Sure it does. An omniscient, unchanging, eternal, objective being who has revealed most certainly does.

(IFF) everyone agreed on the one-true-interpretation and practical application of the moral code of "YHWH" (THEN) we'd all be Orthodox Jews
Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so. What is good is so whether you believe so or not. 

How can you distinguish what is better without this best?  
Quite easily.

Start at the "worst" and take it one step at a time.
Worst in comparison to what?

Topic's author
#432
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.
Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.
Your assertion, not mine. Back it up. 

Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how. 
Topic's author
#433
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.

This claim is unfalsifiable.
Not for those who are true believers.
You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part. 

Topic's author
#434
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
My standard is not myself.
Didn't you choose your standard?
I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for morality.   
Topic's author
#435
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Christian beings coin biblical moral values but they cannot justify Christian morals as anything but subjective feelings or preference.
They can justify what is necessary for morality, and the biblical God fits the bill. Once you take other considerations into mind, such as biblical evidence, that too is reasonable. 
Topic's author
#436
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,
So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings. 
It's a pretty good demonstration that not all Christians agree on the practical application of Christian moral code.

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable. 

Even if you are in a group of a thousand tourists on top of the Empire State Building, who are all hanging off the building waiting to jump on the count of three, that does not make it true that they will survive the fall even if they believe it is.

There is a standard of appeal, the Bible, and there is a correct interpretation of it. 
#437
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
This claim is unfalsifiable.
Not for those who are true believers.
You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part. 

I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
#438
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
I believed in Santa who was my standard of gift giving. He first chose me to  wrap Christmas gifts. Then, in watching the Miracle on 34th Street's  message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for receiving Xmas gifts . Then I turned 7.
#439
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
Life was livable far before intelligent man. 

#440
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What is relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable.
Why can't Christians agree?

What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?
#441
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
They can justify what is necessary for morality,
Did morality exist before Abraham?
#442
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe.
You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".
#443
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how. 
Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.
#444
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
And the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world. 
Your examples should include some biblical references,

15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man [e]intimately. 18 But all the [f]girls who have not known man [g]intimately, [h]spare for yourselves. [LINK]
#445
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles.
I'd say that they are mediated by the exact same principles (human empathy).
#446
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@FLRW
I believed in Santa who was my standard of gift giving. He first chose me to  wrap Christmas gifts. Then, in watching the Miracle on 34th Street's  message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for receiving Xmas gifts . Then I turned 7.
Well stated 
Topic's author
#447
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.
33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]

Very nice! Good point!
Why would "YHWH" make special rules for foreign servants and then say that foreigners should be treated as native-born?

Special rules because God made a covenant with Israel (a special relationship) that was separate from the rest of the ANE world. His design was to showcase His holiness and purity and how impossible it was to meet His righteous requirements once they were compromised at all. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away the sin of the people, they could just cover it until the next time Israel sinned. The sacrifice had to be made every time Israel sinned. So the sacrificial system was pointing forward to the better covenant in typology. The same thing (a typology) with people outside that covenant. They did not realize their own bondage and immorality. Egypt is a representation of that bondage, just like the foreigner is who does not have a relationship with God. Nevertheless, God wanted all people treated with dignity and respect since they were created in His image and likeness (we are an extremely limited image of God in our ability to love, reason, know, create, and choose). So, God did not want Israel abusing foreigners in the same manner Israel had been abused in Egypt. That would not show respect to God.

God is not going to compromise His plan of salvation (the Messiah was chosen to come through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel's lineage) because foreigners did not respect or want to live in accordance with His decrees. Some wanted to see the destruction of the Jews. Thus, Israel was told to drive the people of the Promised Land out of it so that Israel would not compromise their relationship with God. Two people groups, the Amalekites and Canaanites were especially vile in their immorality, sacrificing their own children to Molock and other gods. God was bringing judgment upon them, not just driving them out of the land.

However, if a foreigner came into the country they were to be treated fairly, just like a Hebrew was, whether that be a foreign visitor, someone who was to take up residency in that land, or a foreign slave. They had to abide by the rules of the land.  But the principle of equality is there, all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The exception was in entering and taking the land because the inhabitants of the land would not welcome Israel settling there. 

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.


Again, with foreign slaves, they were either bought or captured in warfare and thus the latter a reparation for Israel. Even so, as I have gone into lots of detail to explain, they were not to be treated harshly, for a number of reasons.
Topic's author
#448
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.
The same way you do.  Moral instinct.  Moral intuition.
It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings.
How do you know the "revelation" is moral?
It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.

Like, what would you think of a "revelation" that suggested you murder your son?
I would think you are crazy. Now, with God, who led Abraham and who had direct dealings with God, He is revealed as the giver and taker of life, and also a righteous Judge. Thus, He will not take a righteous life without restoring it. Abraham understood that. 

nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”

Hebrews 11:17-19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your [a]descendants shall be called.” 19 [b]He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back [c]as a type.

God promised that through Isaac Abraham's descendants would be named, therefore Abraham reasoned that if he took Isaac's life, God would restore it. 

***

Total avoidance of any accountability on your part. Your worldview has yet to justify that what you call moral is right and good. This is almost always one-sided when you speak of morality with a non-believer. They run from revealing how they can make sense of morality.

Topic's author
#449
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you know "the decalogue" is valid?  Because it matches your moral intuition.
First, these principles are universal and self-evident to many, not all.
My moral instincts are universal and self-evident to many and exist without any endorsement.
Your moral instincts are universal and self-evident? To you! They are not to me. Please explain them further and justify that they are or could be. Again, you use the fallacious argument 'ad populum' as a justification. "Most of the passengers are jumping out of the plane without a parachute while at 20,000 feet, therefore, you should too!"  

More than this, what is necessary for these principles to be true. The biblical God fits the checkoff box.
The only thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to be considered true is CONSENSUS.
So Hitler was right in killing over six million Jews, correct? After all, the Germans were indoctrinated into thinking the Jew was not as human as the majority of Germans. 

Torturing innocent people for fun is right as long as the majority thinks so, correct? 

Voting to kill you and your family because the majority want to is right, correct?

The majority says so = must be right. No matter what is proposed, as long as you can get the majority to go along it becomes good!!!

This is the kind of non-thinking statement you can blurt out, but you can live for as soon as such a negative action is applied to you it becomes a different story. Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong, even though the majority think otherwise. For you, Kim Jong Un's North Korea is perfectly justifiable as good if the majority think so. For you, the slaughter of millions in Mao's China becomes okay, such as during the 'Cultural Revolution' if a majority thinks so. For you killing innocent unborn human beings becomes okay because the majority Supreme Court vote says so and the popular opinion of the elites and those they indoctrinate agree. 
#450
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.
Does this universal and unchanging principle still apply today?