Anonymous #1 2w

I don’t mind when someone’s religious but the second they use that religion to justify discriminatory practices I no longer feel beholden to pretend they’re not just engaging in delusions that are now becoming the rest of the worlds problem

61

Anonymous OP 2w

So like you don't approve of when people advocate for laws that align with their religious beliefs?

8

Anonymous #1 2w

I don’t approve of when people advocate for laws that stem from their religious beliefs.

29

Anonymous #1 2w

All in the name of a God that they can’t prove either. I’m perfectly content with whatever you want to believe (general you) but don’t make it my problem.

16

Anonymous OP 2w

So what would you say that laws should be based on?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Secular and logical/semi-democratic reasoning

27

Anonymous OP 2w

So what does that look like? And how would it determine what ethical/moral views our society should hold? Also sorry if you feel like I'm spamming you with questions, I just like to hear from people who I disagree with.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

No you’re fine! I’m happy to explain. There are objective/factual consequences to actions we take against others. I can shoot someone and that results in harm or a decline in quality of life. Concepts of universalism aren’t exclusive to christianity. Biological processes like sympathy and empathy set us up to be socially cooperative innately. Those foundational principles do not necessarily need to stem from a religious belief

31

Anonymous #1 2w

So it would be a lot of dialogue, a LOT of dialogue.

18

Anonymous OP 2w

Sure, but even then the idea that we should act on those impulses is a moral one. The way I see it, law is inherently an act of imposing a moral standard into a population.

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

I agree that we can objectively measure the consequences of our actions, to an extent, but that doesn't tell us whether it's right or wrong to achieve those consequences

-3

Anonymous #1 2w

It’s not, it’s an innate trait of homosapiens. Early humans did it as well, the homoerectus found it beneficial to engage in “accommodation behavior” The idea that we concede or sacrifice things for the sake of our species/longevity. Other animals practice this too. You see moms give their babies food at the expense of their own hunger, shelters well, etc. The difference between those animals and these cases are we can articulate the accommodations into long term goals

31

Anonymous #1 2w

The law doesn’t generally tell us that either. Take killing for example. The law doesn’t say killing is wrong. Killing isn’t illegal. Murder is.

15

Anonymous OP 2w

Sorry, you lost me, what is an innatee trait of homosapiens? And what accomodations are you referring to?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

So are you saying that the law is seperate from morality?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I’m talking biology in reference to the traits and accommodating behaviors

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Do you think the law says killing is bad or good?

9

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah man, because separation of church and state. Its an insanely easy concept. Religion is for YOU to practice, not to FORCE onto others against their will.

17

Anonymous #2 2w

Totally fair

7

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, I think the entire reason that something like killing is illegal is because it's immoral.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

No I agree, I don't think the Church and the state should be the same entity, but what I'm saying is that all laws are a means of imposing some form of morality onto a people, so how do we determine what ideologies are valid to base laws upon and which aren't?

5

Anonymous #2 2w

What health and safety exactly? 😭 I can tell you’ve done a lot of thinking about this.

-3

Anonymous #1 2w

Killing isn’t illegal. You’re perfectly allowed to kill in self defense, to protect your property (in the state of Texas), as a sentence for a crime/the death penalty. Killing is not illegal, murder is.

7

Anonymous #6 2w

Happy to hear it honestly :)

7

Anonymous OP 2w

You're right, I was using the terms interchangeably when I shouldn't have done that. Regardless, my point still stands.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

Access to medication and surgery being restricted for Queer and Disabled folks and anyone who can become pregnant, access to support services and diagnoses being underfunded or gutted because Neurodivergent people can just “pray it away”, the entire anti-vaccination resurgence— all of it ties back to christian-nationalism.

28

Anonymous #2 2w

Kind of an aside, but anti-vax stuff tends to oscillate between both sides of the political aisle.

5

Anonymous #1 2w

And it’s shitty all around.

8

Anonymous #1 2w

your point stands, how?

4

Anonymous #7 2w

Peculiar isn’t it

8

Anonymous OP 2w

In that murder is illegal because it's deemed to be immoral.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Murder is illegal because it’s not the correct (legally speaking) way to kill. Is self defense illegal? and why/why not?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Hold on, I'm confused. Do you think that when murder was made illegal, it was a purely arbitrary decision?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Well I’d love an answer before I answer yours.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

No, self defense is not illegal because there are certain cases in which lethal force can be justifiably used to defend one's self, one's property, or others.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, so killing isn’t wrong as long as there are exceptions or justifications for why you can kill. You’re acknowledging that there are cases where killing isn’t wrong. Which implies that killing, the act of taking a life isn’t inherently immoral. And we recognize that through our legislative process

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Well, no, I wouldn't say it's ever "good" to kill someone, but there may be cases in which it's justifiable. But it's take another example, one that we'd both agree is always wrong, rape.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I didn’t say the word good in any of that paragraph. I said we don’t recognize the act of taking a life as something inherently immoral.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Sure, I'll agree to that, killing is only generally immoral.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah culturally we recognize it in most cases to be harmful, which is why killing isn’t actually illegal. Murder is. There are cases where killing doesn’t benefit society or the people in question

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Sure, I agree with that. I think our original topic was that morality and the law are intently linked, right?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

No. The original topic was specifically what I posted

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Well sure, but I meant of our discussion.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Then sure yeah

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I mean I don’t agree with the premise but I’m just trying not to be difficult so yes

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so do you disagree with that position?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Yeah, I'm not trying to be difficult either

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I’d say for the sake of discussion: I don’t agree that law and morality are innately linked

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Your religion doesn’t dictate my life, it dictates yours. No religious based laws should be passed

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Why is that?

0

Anonymous #8 2w

So then what moral/ethical views are acceptable to base laws on and which aren't?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Because a mythical sky daddy shouldn’t have a say in tangible real life issues, are you fr?

1

Anonymous #8 2w

That comment was directed to OP, the second one was directed towards you.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Religion ≠ moral/ethics, if anything religion as proven itself as immoral and unethical time and time again, your fake ass God doesn’t dictate law in a country that has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, you force laws of religion, it’s no longer freedom of religion

1

Anonymous #8 2w

Respectfully, that's not what I asked you. I'm curious to know which moral/ethical frameworks you view as being acceptable to base laws on, and which you don't. And for what it's worth, I don't think we should just make all Christian ethics into laws. For example, adultery is wrong, but I don't think it should be a jailable crime.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Social contracts and pure selfishness, I don’t want to be murdered so I shouldn’t murder other people, therefore murder should be illegal, and the fast majority of individuals agree which is why socially murder is wrong. Hints the social contract part, The idea that there is no morals without religion is just blatantly wrong.

1

Anonymous #8 2w

Ok, I'd disagree with that, I don't think a government based on selfishness is one that can function to create a prosperous society. It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you take a more negative rights view, I'd hold to a more positive rights view. Also, I don't recall ever saying that you need to be religious to be a moral person.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

You guys are still here?

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Because ascribing behaviors to ensure survival or safety is not innately a moral imperative. It’s an instinctual one. You have no moral reaction to me saying “do not eat poisonous berries that cause you great pain and suffering ” because that is something (generally speaking) that you would not do anyways. It’s just a regulatory system designed to ensure long term success and survival

1

Anonymous #9 2w

I agree, it’s gross the republicans can’t just leave people alone!

1

Anonymous OP 2w

So then how do you understand/define morality?

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

Not with religion.

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Religion if anything is immoral.

12

Anonymous #8 2w

The amount of harm that was just swept away because “GoD sAiD sO” is abysmal.

7

Anonymous #1 2w

Emotional responses to information, a framework for acceptable behavior and ethical choices ultimately to determine whether or not the action was appropriate for the context

1

Anonymous #8 2w

How so?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

So would you describe yourself as an emotivist?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

No not necessarily. But let me ask, I assume you’re christian and or you adhere to objective morality?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, I'm Catholic.

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

That’s part of the issue.

8

Anonymous #2 2w

What is?

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, so let’s take an example of something objectively immoral. Can we agree, on some terms first. Objective in this context means true regardless of who commits the act (it’s wrong if you do it or I) you can agree to that?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Yeah, I'd say that if something is objectively immoral it means that it's always wrong for someone to do it.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Great, so let’s take another example. If I were to kill a baby, who’s committed no immoral act, i.e stabbing, beating, drowning, etc it doesn’t matter. That to you would be an objectively immoral act? You’d recognize that to be wrong

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Yeah, it would be objectively wrong for a person to kill a baby. I think I know where you're going with this, and I honestly think we've had a conversation on here before.

-4

Anonymous #1 2w

Probably, I don’t doubt it. Objective means true regardless in this context, you agreed. So God does this during the flood, is it objectively immoral for him to have drowned a baby who’s committed no immoral act in the (Noah) flood story?

4

Anonymous OP 2w

No. Generally speaking when discussing morality we're speaking in terms of human action, because God is so far above us in terms of power, authority, things like that, that it doesn't compare. I can elaborate on that if you'd like.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay so then there are exceptions to the standard of “wrong no matter who does it” which contests what the definition of what you agreed with.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Then I'll add the caveat of any human person to do it I suppose.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, that’s also not objective then. If the standard is not equal across the board because some entities have a different one that supersedes others, that is authoritative

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Why would differing levels of authority mean that morality isn't objective?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

If an act is immoral, objectively speaking. The acts moral implications do not change regardless of who does it. The implication of someone being able to do something that is “objectively immoral” without having that same moral responsibility means there’s differing levels of their ability to commit im(moral) acts

6

Anonymous OP 2w

I disagree, we could say that it's immoral for sometime to do 'X' because they lack the proper authority to do so. If they did have the proper authority, then it would not be immoral.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

So you agree that Gods immune from this standard due to his authority?

2

Anonymous OP 2w

Not immune, but that He has a higher level of authority, particularly in regard to human life, as He is the source of our life.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Is God capable and or has he ever done anything objectively immoral?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

No to both. God's nature is goodness, and God cannot act outside His nature.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay so then he is immune. Whether that immunity is conscious or not he is removed from that standard. Do you believe that God is good in anything and everything he does, so for example, that drowned child. Was it good that he drowned a baby?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Immune is not the word I would use, but sure. And yeah, God has the right to determine what amount of life He gives to a person. No one is owed any specific amount of life from God.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, well then substantiate for me, why it’s morally good to drown a baby by filling its lungs with water. I understand that he has the authority in your mind to do so. But explain why the act itself becomes moral without having to reexplain that he simply just has the authority.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so God is the source of all human life, at every moment. You and I are alive right now because God is currently willing it. God can choose to stop doing so at any point, and it's not immoral for Him to do so, because again, all life is coming from Him. Can you substantiate for me why, in your world view, it would be wrong for me to drown a baby?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I understand you think he’s the source of life, that he’s able to choose etc etc. but that’s still asserting that he’s allowed to just cause he’s allowed to. why does the ACT become moral, explain why the act is moral in this context. Explain how the act of drowning a baby is a moral one.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

No, it's not. If I'm giving a dollar a day, am I morally obligated in any way to keep doing so? It's the same thing. God chose to stop giving the gift of like to this person, and He had no moral obligation to keep doing so. I'm doing my best to answer your question, could you answer mine?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I don’t feel as though you’re understanding my question and or you’re not being direct with it which is why I’m holding off I promise I will answer. The act of drowning a baby, does it become moral once God does it, you say yes, so I’m asking you now, to tell me why drowning a baby (that act) is moral.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so God also isn't morally obligated to end our life in any certain way. So Him not saving someone from flood waters isn't immoral.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

He caused the flood waters in Noah’s story. This wasn’t something that naturally happened as the flood was global. Do you understand my prompt/question? Can you repeat what I’m asking back to you?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, you asked why it's ok for God to kill children during the flood in the time of Noah. God cleansed the world via the waters of the flood. God is the authority over human life, and if He determined that that was the right thing to do, then it was.

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking you to substantiate the act morally.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

The act itself.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, then I don't know what you mean by that, because that's what I've been doing.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Explain why it’s good to drown a baby: That is the most simple way I can prompt it as of right now. I will think of other ways though since maybe I’m not making myself clear.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

I've done my best to answer this, I truly have no other way of communicating this. Can I ask, are you making an internal or external critique of Christianity here?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

You’ve definitely done a good job at asserting why God has the authority. But can you just make it simple for me, in 1-10steps however many you need, bullet point it, explain why it’s good to drown babies

6

Anonymous OP 2w

I've explained to you why it was OK for God to do so. Clearly we're at an impasse at this point in the conversation, because I truly have no other way to exain it. Are you ok with moving past this topic?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I’m not asking why it was okay for God to do that. I’m asking why is it good to do that at all.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Well you're asking specifically about God's doing it, so I explained that. It would be wrong for anyone else to do it.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Without saying the word God, explain how the act of drowning a baby becomes good in reference to his specific case, what actions make it good?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Because He has the authority to do so.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

That’s not explaining the specific actions that make drowning a baby morally become good.

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Look, I've explained this as best I can. At this point I'll just accept the fact that I'm unable to give you a sufficient explanation to your question. Are you ok with moving on from this question?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Sure, I’ll just agree that for now it’s a concession to that point. What was your question?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Well I had two that came up, one was whether or not you can show according to your worldview that it would be wrong for me to drown a child, and the other was whether you were making an external or internal critique of Christianity.

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

I can yes, and I’m making both.

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, how would you do that? And to be clear, you're saying that children dying in the flood shows that Christianity is wrong, both from an internal and external perspective?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Are you asking me to explain how it’s wrong or just asking me to explain the process in which I came to that conclusion? And yes I am.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Yeah, so can you explain how it's wrong from your worldview, and also the flood proves Christianity to be false, both internally and externally? I know that's a lot so feel free to go one at a time.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah definitely, so starting with the drowning one. It’s wrong to drown a baby who done nothing immoral for a lot of reasons but mainly due to the loss of life at an unnecessary expense. It serves nobody physically, emotionally, or mentally to harm someone who’s broken no social contract

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Wrong according to what? You believe that morality isn't objective, so wouldn't you view all moral systems as being equally weighted?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

No, that’s a common misconception among other moral systems. There are levels to moral acts. All (conscious for a lack of a better term) living things recognize this. If you step on a dogs foot that causes a negative reaction but odds are it won’t feel the need to fight to the death over it. If you kill its offspring, it may.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Well no, I think you misunderstood me. You do believe morality is subjective, right?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Yes

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so then every moral system is just as valid as any other, yes?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

No, every moral system is equally as subjective. Valid means something is logically sound or factually based

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, then they're all equally subjective. So one person's moral system where it's good to drown babies is equal to yours where it's bad to drown babies, no?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

No, it’s equally as subjective. Meaning that their moral system exists to them but not all moral systems are sound. So the act wouldn’t be sound.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Explain what you mean by sound.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

the conclusion that logically follows from the premises) and based on true (factual for clarity) premises.

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so then what would be an example of an unsound moral position?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

This is an example I want to preface I don’t believe these things lol. Hitler saw that jewish people committed immoral acts, all of that group commits moral acts, them committing immoral acts threatens “my” way of life, they need to be gone if I want to preserve my way of life. The premise is built upon the notion that all people of one group are a threat, rather than associating the threat with the individuals in question and not attributing it to the whole group

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, so you're saying that moral systems can be wrong if they're established in faulty premises, I agree with that. But what's the faulty premise in saying that it is by nature good to drown children?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Nature, I assume you’re talking about the natural world?

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Just like what we see in nature I mean

3

Anonymous OP 2w

I'm not sure what you mean.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Why do you mean by nature?

2

Anonymous OP 2w

Oh, sorry, I meant nature as in the nature of the act of drowning children. As in the act itself just is good because it is, in the same way you and I are human because that's what we are.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Oh I see what you mean. No I wouldn’t agree with that.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Why not?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Humans are, that is not a moral claim. Killing is good, is.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

I'm confused by what you mean. I understand that saying to drown children is good is a moral claim, how would you show that that's wrong?

0

Anonymous #1 2w

By building premises using biological, social, and tangible processes and then applying that to a case where that claim was being justified. Do you think subjective morality, my view of it, is flawed logically?

3

Anonymous OP 2w

It’s pretty bad that this “omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving” “god” refuses to eliminate evil, constantly makes harm happen, and doesn’t know everything. 😂

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok, why should we use those as our premises? I'll also be honest here, I'm really not sure what you mean by this. I think your view is wrong, and I don't think you're taking it to its full conclusions.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Those are tangible. Those are malleable enough to be contextualized with nuance. Do you think my position leads me to conclusion that are “dead ends” like do you think me having subjective morality leads to a conclusion where the moral claim doesn’t sound justified or rational?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

I understand those things can be measured, that doesn't explain why they should be the basis of our moral standards. I don't think you can justify why your moral views are correct under subjective morality. So you don't actually have any grounds to say that it's wrong to drown a child under your view.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Because they are tangible and when deciding what to use as a standard, logically speaking the things we can measure are things that are more reliable. Okay, I assumed you’d say that. This is going to be extreme, I really want you to work with me here. But if God at any point had said that, rape is moral, would you agree with him? I’m not saying he would or ever did. I’m just asking in this hypothetical, if he said rape was morally good, would you side with him on that? Everything else is the s

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Again, I understand that about them, that they might be easier to measure the outcomes of our actions, how does that make them the better basis for morality? And this question is basically the same as me asking you, if 2+2=5, wouldn't you be doing math wrong? Like sure, I guess in this impossible hypothetical that's the case.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I answered, but I’ll ask, what do you think my answer should be or will be? To that first question you asked. It also may be, but if today God said rape was good, you’d agree?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

The first question being can you show that it's wrong, in your worldview to drown a child? Your answer should be no, because I don't think you can. If I thought God appeared to me saying it's now good to rape people, I'd know it wasn't really God because morality doesn't change like that. It would either be a hallucination, or a demon, or some other explanation.

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

Your own fairytale has your ‘god’ going back and forth all the time. 😂

8

Anonymous #1 2w

I think I did, so I’m confused as to why you’re not seeing it as one. No, I’m not asking if you thought he said this. If God right now said that rape is moral, if that happened, would you agree?

5

Anonymous #1 2w

You’re actually sick and delusional, get checked for psychosis

9