Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Good choice. I hope you mean it. On the other hand, if you think you can just say it, and that it comes without any responsibilities or change of life...well, you won't find it does. So you'll have to be willing to count the cost, and make your decision accordingly.

Well, if the choice is eternal torment or else mercy, what choice do I really have? It's like asking a person if they'd like to be hit with a baseball bat or not hit with a baseball bat. I've had the torment thing before in life and it kind of sucks.

And yet, not everybody has your common sense. Some would rather go for an eternity without God, on speculation that will work out better...or that maybe the eternal pit of black oblivion would be a better option.

People think odd things, sometimes.

As Jesus said, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it benefit a person to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

I assume there's more to Christianity than just accepting mercy. Is it not the case that a Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ to be their savior? And if so, how does one know if Christ is his savior or else the one condemning him for not believing in him. It seems to me that one must also believe Christ is all that the church makes him out to be and I'm not sure I can do that. I mean, I can sit in Church or tonight I'm going to CR again, but I'd be lying at this point if I stood up and identified Christ as my savior, because I don't know if it is true or not.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if the choice is eternal torment or else mercy, what choice do I really have? It's like asking a person if they'd like to be hit with a baseball bat or not hit with a baseball bat. I've had the torment thing before in life and it kind of sucks.

And yet, not everybody has your common sense. Some would rather go for an eternity without God, on speculation that will work out better...or that maybe the eternal pit of black oblivion would be a better option.

People think odd things, sometimes.

As Jesus said, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it benefit a person to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

I assume there's more to Christianity than just accepting mercy. Is it not the case that a Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ to be their savior? And if so, how does one know if Christ is his savior or else the one condemning him for not believing in him. It seems to me that one must also believe Christ is all that the church makes him out to be and I'm not sure I can do that. I mean, I can sit in Church or tonight I'm going to CR again, but I'd be lying at this point if I stood up and identified Christ as my savior, because I don't know if it is true or not.

Don't listen to men. Don't even listen to me. Listen to what Christ says. Then you'll know what to do.

[Gary Childress]

And yet, not everybody has your common sense. Some would rather go for an eternity without God, on speculation that will work out better...or that maybe the eternal pit of black oblivion would be a better option.

People think odd things, sometimes.

As Jesus said, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it benefit a person to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

I assume there's more to Christianity than just accepting mercy. Is it not the case that a Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ to be their savior? And if so, how does one know if Christ is his savior or else the one condemning him for not believing in him. It seems to me that one must also believe Christ is all that the church makes him out to be and I'm not sure I can do that. I mean, I can sit in Church or tonight I'm going to CR again, but I'd be lying at this point if I stood up and identified Christ as my savior, because I don't know if it is true or not.

Don't listen to men. Don't even listen to me. Listen to what Christ says. Then you'll know what to do.

I've read various parts of what Christ says, some of it from your posts, however, for some of it, I don't know if it's the truth or not. I can believe that there was a person named Jesus Christ. However, I don't know if he is what he said he is, or according to some (Bart Ehrmann among them), Christ himself may not have proclaimed himself God. Perhaps reading the Bible is a bit like reading Plato and thinking that Socrates said and believed everything Plato makes him out to. I don't know. And for me to walk into a church and say I'm a Christian, I would not be telling the truth. I am a skeptic and agnostic.

[Harbal]

That's no good, unless you want to accept that Hitler, Stalin and Mao are just as morally reliable as you and I are.

"Morally reliable" seems a strange term; I'm not quite sure what it could mean.

Oh, it's very simple: I only mean that you would have to think that those three were just as "good" (whatever you take that term to mean) at knowing and acting in ways that are "moral" as anybody else is.

The fact that those people might have a moral position does not mean I have to accept it; especially if it conflicts with mine.

No: but Subjectivism means you have no basis at all for speaking against it.

No problem, I would just speak out against it without having the basis.

I don't know about Mao, but I doubt that Stalin even had a sense of morality; his conduct certainly suggested he did not.

That's a very irrational statement for any Subjectivist to make, though. He would have to think that whatever Stalin did was justified entirely by whatever sense of the thing Stalin had.

When did I ever say that having a personal, subjective sense of morality justifies any action that is based on it? And, incidentally, I do not think Stalin did have a sense of morality, just one of self preservation.

We both have such a framework; it's just that we have acquired them in different ways, and you are under the misconception that yours is founded on some sort of objective truth.

You don't actually have a framework. You've got emotion.

All you have is your misconception.

What reason would I have for devising a method for an imaginary being to express his wishes?

Well, since you criticized God's methodology, I was assuming you had some better idea. And since you don't, I don't think you can judge whether or not God used the most expeditious and appropriate method. So it sort of ruins your criticism.

I don't know that I criticised God's methodology; I think it was more a criticism of your methodology. Believing that someone is conveying the words of some almighty being, just on their say so, seems a rather ill considered strategy to me.

What if I claim blue is preferable to red, and you claim red is better?

That's not a factual or moral judgment. It's aesthetic. And the rules are quite different for aesthetics. Aesthetics are about taste, not facts or moral values.

But morality, as I know it, is about taste, and not facts, although it is about moral judgement. Moral tastes do come under a different category to aesthetic tastes, such as one's preferences in wallpapers, but they do share many common principles.

You said: "In every case, it's either a moral death or an immoral one. And that doesn't depend on how psychotic the murder is, or how he "feels" about what he did."
There's quite a bit to think about there, and thinking you can deal with it with a simple blanket response is not remotely in keeping with any principles of philosophy.

Illuminate me. What more do you think needs to be said than that?

Perhaps another day.

Well I know of no actual sign of God's existence, bit if he did exist, why would I think that morality depended on him?

I would have to, obviously: as the Creator of all things, there could be no source higher.

Then you would also have to think God was the source that needed to be consulted before you could be sure you were decorating your living room with the right wallpaper.

No it doesn't. It would just mean that there were two systems of morality in operation.

Only one that is actually a "morality."

As I understand it, the word, “morality”, refers to the human sense of right and wrong, and that is the only way in which I am able to understand it. It is certainly the only way in which I am able to experience it, so I am bound to agree with you.

And then we face the choice Hume tried to avoid by recourse to Emotivism -- the choice between faith and Nihilism.

I don't envy you that choice; I certainly wouldn't like to be faced with it.

It's the human choice. Nobody escapes it.

In that case, call me Houdini.

Subjectivism is man trying to get away from the consequences of his own folly and God-hatred

Subjectivism just seems like common sense to me, and God hatred seems like stupidity.


So, to summarise: You still haven't provided any reason to thing there is any such thing as God, or why he could be a source of morality in a way that human beings can't.

[Immanuel Can]

I assume there's more to Christianity than just accepting mercy. Is it not the case that a Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ to be their savior? And if so, how does one know if Christ is his savior or else the one condemning him for not believing in him. It seems to me that one must also believe Christ is all that the church makes him out to be and I'm not sure I can do that. I mean, I can sit in Church or tonight I'm going to CR again, but I'd be lying at this point if I stood up and identified Christ as my savior, because I don't know if it is true or not.

Don't listen to men. Don't even listen to me. Listen to what Christ says. Then you'll know what to do.

I've read various parts of what Christ says, some of it from your posts, however, for some of it, I don't know if it's the truth or not. I can believe that there was a person named Jesus Christ. However, I don't know if he is what he said he is, or according to some (Bart Ehrmann among them), Christ himself may not have proclaimed himself God. Perhaps reading the Bible is a bit like reading Plato and thinking that Socrates said and believed everything Plato makes him out to. I don't know. And for me to walk into a church and say I'm a Christian, I would not be telling the truth. I am a skeptic and agnostic.

Just listen to the Man. You'll know, if you want to know.

[Immanuel Can]

"Morally reliable" seems a strange term; I'm not quite sure what it could mean.

Oh, it's very simple: I only mean that you would have to think that those three were just as "good" (whatever you take that term to mean) at knowing and acting in ways that are "moral" as anybody else is.

The fact that those people might have a moral position does not mean I have to accept it; especially if it conflicts with mine.

No: but Subjectivism means you have no basis at all for speaking against it.

No problem, I would just speak out against it without having the basis.

Then you'd condemn something arbitrarily? Without any basis? That seems a little judgmental, doesn't it? At least somebody who condemns something on some rational basis offers a reason for it...but you're suggesting you'd just condemn people while knowing you have no good reason to do so?

I don't know about Mao, but I doubt that Stalin even had a sense of morality; his conduct certainly suggested he did not.

That's a very irrational statement for any Subjectivist to make, though. He would have to think that whatever Stalin did was justified entirely by whatever sense of the thing Stalin had.

When did I ever say that having a personal, subjective sense of morality justifies any action that is based on it?

Well, you certainly can't suggest on a subjective basis that it was unjustified. So long as the guy had "the feeling," he's got to be your moral equal...that is, unless there's a moral standard that is over you both, one which you are usually trying to ignore but now tacitly calling to your aid...

Maybe Stalin really is evil. Maybe there's a standard that does judge him. But how does a Subjectivist get access to that standard, when he's denied it even exists?

We both have such a framework; it's just that we have acquired them in different ways, and you are under the misconception that yours is founded on some sort of objective truth.

You don't actually have a framework. You've got emotion.

All you have is your misconception.

You can say my framework is wrong. You can say it's misconceived. But at least I have one. Subjectivism has none.

That's why Nihilism is the only remaining option. If all standards are really just subjective, then none of them is binding on anyone at all. None of them is real. They're all imaginary, at the whim of the imaginer. And the imaginer might be Stalin.

What reason would I have for devising a method for an imaginary being to express his wishes?

Well, since you criticized God's methodology, I was assuming you had some better idea. And since you don't, I don't think you can judge whether or not God used the most expeditious and appropriate method. So it sort of ruins your criticism.

I don't know that I criticised God's methodology; I think it was more a criticism of your methodology. Believing that someone is conveying the words of some almighty being, just on their say so, seems a rather ill considered strategy to me.

It depends on Whose "say so" you do it.

What if I claim blue is preferable to red, and you claim red is better?

That's not a factual or moral judgment. It's aesthetic. And the rules are quite different for aesthetics. Aesthetics are about taste, not facts or moral values.

But morality, as I know it, is about taste, and not facts, although it is about moral judgement. Moral tastes do come under a different category to aesthetic tastes, such as one's preferences in wallpapers, but they do share many common principles.

What "common principles" do they share?

Well I know of no actual sign of God's existence, bit if he did exist, why would I think that morality depended on him?

I would have to, obviously: as the Creator of all things, there could be no source higher.

Then you would also have to think God was the source that needed to be consulted before you could be sure you were decorating your living room with the right wallpaper.

No, that's both trivial and aesthetic. But if you can exposit the alleged principles that are the same for morals and aesthetics, perhaps I'll have reason to believe you.

Subjectivism is man trying to get away from the consequences of his own folly and God-hatred

Subjectivism just seems like common sense to me, and God hatred seems like stupidity.

We'll see.

So, to summarise: You still haven't provided any reason to thing there is any such thing as God, or why he could be a source of morality in a way that human beings can't.

Well, nothing you've been willing to accept, anyway. But then, since you're not willing even to say what sort of test you'd accept for the existence of God, nobody has any means at all to prove it to your satisfaction.

Rather convenient, that. But not necessarily wise. You might be better to think of what you would accept. If it's reasonable, maybe the challenge can be met after all. But if you're excluding everything prior to any inquiry, then the reason you don't know any good reasons is that you don't accept reasons.

[Harbal]

Oh, it's very simple: I only mean that you would have to think that those three were just as "good" (whatever you take that term to mean) at knowing and acting in ways that are "moral" as anybody else is.
No: but Subjectivism means you have no basis at all for speaking against it.

No problem, I would just speak out against it without having the basis.

Then you'd condemn something arbitrarily?

Yes, with myself as the arbiter.

Without any basis?

What choice would I have? You have denied me a basis.

That seems a little judgmental, doesn't it?

Possibly, but I take morality quite seriously, so it would probably be very judgemental.

At least somebody who condemns something on some rational basis offers a reason for it...but you're suggesting you'd just condemn people while knowing you have no good reason to do so?

No, I'm suggesting I'd condemn them while knowing you think I have no good reason to do so.

Maybe Stalin really is evil. Maybe there's a standard that does judge him. But how does a Subjectivist get access to that standard, when he's denied it even exists?

There are lots of standards that judge him, and mine is just one of them.

All you have is your misconception.

You can say my framework is wrong. You can say it's misconceived. But at least I have one. Subjectivism has none.

I have a framework that I constructed myself. Maybe I just have more aptitude for DIY than you do.

That's why Nihilism is the only remaining option. If all standards are really just subjective, then none of them is binding on anyone at all.

Can you make a logical argument for why I would feel any more bound by a standard that I don't believe in than a standard of my own, which I do believe in?

I don't know that I criticised God's methodology; I think it was more a criticism of your methodology. Believing that someone is conveying the words of some almighty being, just on their say so, seems a rather ill considered strategy to me.

It depends on Whose "say so" you do it.

And on whose say so do you do it?

But morality, as I know it, is about taste, and not facts, although it is about moral judgement. Moral tastes do come under a different category to aesthetic tastes, such as one's preferences in wallpapers, but they do share many common principles.

What "common principles" do they share?

They are both based on personal taste, whether it be moral taste, or aesthetic taste, and neither has anything to do with God.

So, to summarise: You still haven't provided any reason to thing there is any such thing as God, or why he could be a source of morality in a way that human beings can't.

Well, nothing you've been willing to accept, anyway. But then, since you're not willing even to say what sort of test you'd accept for the existence of God, nobody has any means at all to prove it to your satisfaction.

Well I'm not going to fall into the trap again of saying that nobody has the means, so I must only say that no one has yet utilised those means, and presented me with a remotely convincing reason to even start taking the idea of God seriously. Still, my door is always open.

[Immanuel Can]

No problem, I would just speak out against it without having the basis.

Then you'd condemn something arbitrarily?

Yes, with myself as the arbiter.

Without any basis?

What choice would I have? You have denied me a basis.

I didn't. I believe there is a basis. You denied it to yourself, without realizing you did it.

That seems a little judgmental, doesn't it?

Possibly, but I take morality quite seriously, so it would probably be very judgemental.

And does that make you a good person, objectively, or just an arbitrary person who's self-satisfied?

At least somebody who condemns something on some rational basis offers a reason for it...but you're suggesting you'd just condemn people while knowing you have no good reason to do so?

No, I'm suggesting I'd condemn them while knowing you think I have no good reason to do so.

Not me. It's you. You're the one who says there are no objective truths in morality. That means it's not capable of being supported with reasons that any reasonable person should accept.

Maybe Stalin really is evil. Maybe there's a standard that does judge him. But how does a Subjectivist get access to that standard, when he's denied it even exists?

There are lots of standards that judge him, and mine is just one of them.

Which one really counts? Because Stalin's own standards acquit him, as do Subjectivist standards.

All you have is your misconception.

You can say my framework is wrong. You can say it's misconceived. But at least I have one. Subjectivism has none.

I have a framework that I constructed myself.

That's not a "framework." That's just a twinge. It's not real or binding for anybody else, even rationally.

That's why Nihilism is the only remaining option. If all standards are really just subjective, then none of them is binding on anyone at all.

Can you make a logical argument for why I would feel any more bound by a standard that I don't believe in than a standard of my own, which I do believe in?

I just have. If you were a Nihilist, at least you'd be logical. If you're a Subjectivist, you're believing in nothing that makes sense, even on its own terms.

I don't know that I criticised God's methodology; I think it was more a criticism of your methodology. Believing that someone is conveying the words of some almighty being, just on their say so, seems a rather ill considered strategy to me.

It depends on Whose "say so" you do it.

And on whose say so do you do it?

God's, of course. The first step of faith is the step where one decides to believe Him about something.

But morality, as I know it, is about taste, and not facts, although it is about moral judgement. Moral tastes do come under a different category to aesthetic tastes, such as one's preferences in wallpapers, but they do share many common principles.

What "common principles" do they share?

They are both based on personal taste, whether it be moral taste, or aesthetic taste, and neither has anything to do with God.

Well, again, that's not a "principle," and I'd suggest it isn't even true. But it certainly would reduce all moral deliberation to the trivial. It would mean that genocide and wallpaper were parallel issues. I don't think very many people -- even Subjectivists -- would be inclined to accept that easily.

So, to summarise: You still haven't provided any reason to thing there is any such thing as God, or why he could be a source of morality in a way that human beings can't.

Well, nothing you've been willing to accept, anyway. But then, since you're not willing even to say what sort of test you'd accept for the existence of God, nobody has any means at all to prove it to your satisfaction.

Well I'm not going to fall into the trap again of saying that nobody has the means, so I must only say that no one has yet utilised those means, and presented me with a remotely convincing reason to even start taking the idea of God seriously. Still, my door is always open.

Apparently not. Apparently it's not merely bolted shut, but there isn't a doorway there in the first place. You've decided, and it's unfalsifiable to you, because you don't accept any basis of its falsification. But it's not the fault of the arguments; that's a decision made by the recipient, prior to all evidence.

[Harbal]

Then you'd condemn something arbitrarily?

Yes, with myself as the arbiter.

Without any basis?

What choice would I have? You have denied me a basis.

I didn't. I believe there is a basis. You denied it to yourself, without realizing you did it.

Oh dear, how careless of me. I'd better reinstate it immediately.

Possibly, but I take morality quite seriously, so it would probably be very judgemental.

And does that make you a good person, objectively, or just an arbitrary person who's self-satisfied?

I would hope that exercising my own judgement led to my being satisfied with myself.

No, I'm suggesting I'd condemn them while knowing you think I have no good reason to do so.

Not me. It's you. You're the one who says there are no objective truths in morality. That means it's not capable of being supported with reasons that any reasonable person should accept.

I don't condemn people without having what I consider to be a good reason, and I see no reason why anyone else would be less likely to accept my reasons than your reasons, especially as I would not be the one lying to them.

There are lots of standards that judge him, and mine is just one of them.

Which one really counts?

None, apparently, as he was allowed to carry on with what he was doing until he dropped dead of his own accord.

And on whose say so do you do it?

God's, of course. The first step of faith is the step where one decides to believe Him about something.

You just believe something that is written in an old book, and there is little dispute that it was written by human hands. Still, it isn't my place to question your appalling judgement in considering that a sound basis for "faith".

They are both based on personal taste, whether it be moral taste, or aesthetic taste, and neither has anything to do with God.[/quote=
Well, again, that's not a "principle," and I'd suggest it isn't even true.

Surely you can't think I was expecting you to suggest otherwise.

Well I'm not going to fall into the trap again of saying that nobody has the means, so I must only say that no one has yet utilised those means, and presented me with a remotely convincing reason to even start taking the idea of God seriously. Still, my door is always open.

Apparently not. Apparently it's not merely bolted shut, but there isn't a doorway there in the first place. You've decided, and it's unfalsifiable to you, because you don't accept any basis of its falsification. But it's not the fault of the arguments; that's a decision made by the recipient, prior to all evidence.

All I can say then is that it's a jolly good job God doesn't exist, or I would really be in trouble, wouldn't I?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, with myself as the arbiter.

What choice would I have? You have denied me a basis.

I didn't. I believe there is a basis. You denied it to yourself, without realizing you did it.

Oh dear, how careless of me. I'd better reinstate it immediately.

You never stated any basis in the first place. You said you had one...you didn't say what it is...because...why?

Possibly, but I take morality quite seriously, so it would probably be very judgemental.

And does that make you a good person, objectively, or just an arbitrary person who's self-satisfied?

I would hope that exercising my own judgement led to my being satisfied with myself.

Well, self-satisfaction is only good if a person has done something the should be satisfied with. And since Subjectivists are always satisfied with themselves, that means there's nothing objective behind that satisfaction.

No, I'm suggesting I'd condemn them while knowing you think I have no good reason to do so.

Not me. It's you. You're the one who says there are no objective truths in morality. That means it's not capable of being supported with reasons that any reasonable person should accept.

I don't condemn people without having what I consider to be a good reason,

There's a difference between having a reason (meaning "a motive"), and having reason (logic, rationality). You've got the first one, alright; but the second is missing. You've got nothing rational, nothing that could or should convince another person.

There are lots of standards that judge him, and mine is just one of them.

Which one really counts?

None, apparently, as he was allowed to carry on with what he was doing until he dropped dead of his own accord.

And then? Well, if Stalin knows anything, he knows now.

And on whose say so do you do it?

God's, of course. The first step of faith is the step where one decides to believe Him about something.

You just believe something that is written in an old book, and there is little dispute that it was written by human hands. Still, it isn't my place to question your appalling judgement in considering that a sound basis for "faith".

Yep, that's your opinion, alright. I see that. But something being written down...does that make it more or less reliable. And as for "old," what impact does age have on the truth value of a claim? And "human hands," yes indeed. The book tells you that. But was that all it was? That's the real question.

Apparently not. Apparently it's not merely bolted shut, but there isn't a doorway there in the first place. You've decided, and it's unfalsifiable to you, because you don't accept any basis of its falsification. But it's not the fault of the arguments; that's a decision made by the recipient, prior to all evidence.

All I can say then is that it's a jolly good job God doesn't exist, or I would really be in trouble, wouldn't I?

What an interesting choice: to be facing one's own inevitable death, and to be aware that it would be a bad thing for one if God does exist, and not even to entertain the thought of doing anything about it...not such a "jolly" or "good" thing, I should think.

But the disposition of a man's soul is his own sacred choice. And the last person who will ever try to take it away from you would be somebody like me.

[Harbal]

I don't condemn people without having what I consider to be a good reason,

There's a difference between having a reason (meaning "a motive"), and having reason (logic, rationality). You've got the first one, alright; but the second is missing. You've got nothing rational, nothing that could or should convince another person.

There are occasionally situations where I might want to convince someone of the rightness of my moral view, but I don't remember ever being in one where it was crucial for me to be successful. Actually, most of those situations were probably here on this forum, and the person not being convinced was usually you. If I remember correctly, you have never had much success in convincing me of the rightness of your moral views, either, and when I come to think of it, your moral views tend to have less rational reasoning behind them than mine.

Which one really counts?

None, apparently, as he was allowed to carry on with what he was doing until he dropped dead of his own accord.

And then? Well, if Stalin knows anything, he knows now.

And what good is that to anybody? If he does know now, what he will know is that his biggest crime was that of not believing in God, rather than being responsible for the deaths of millions of people. If there is any rationality -or justice- in that, it is of a particularly perverse variety.

You just believe something that is written in an old book, and there is little dispute that it was written by human hands. Still, it isn't my place to question your appalling judgement in considering that a sound basis for "faith".

Yep, that's your opinion, alright. I see that.

But, unlike my moral opinions, it was arrived at rationally.

But something being written down...does that make it more or less reliable.

It doesn't make it anything other than just words on a page.

And as for "old," what impact does age have on the truth value of a claim?

The longer ago that something was written down, the harder it is to verify the identity of its author, and the truth of any claims it makes. The fact that it was written a very long time ago means that whoever wrote it would have held many beliefs that we now know to be nonsense. The main thing that needs taking into consideration is that it is religious text, and if you just examine your own attitude towards religious texts that are not of your own particular religion, I'm sure you will see how much truth value I am suggesting we give it.

And "human hands," yes indeed. The book tells you that. But was that all it was? That's the real question.

Unfortunately, being real questions does not prevent them from being silly questions. In any other instance, you would also consider it a silly question, and your decision to make an exception in this case rather undermines all the accusations of irrationality you have levelled at me.

All I can say then is that it's a jolly good job God doesn't exist, or I would really be in trouble, wouldn't I?

What an interesting choice: to be facing one's own inevitable death, and to be aware that it would be a bad thing for one if God does exist, and not even to entertain the thought of doing anything about it...not such a "jolly" or "good" thing, I should think.

You must be very used to my flippant attitude towards God by now, so I am pleasantly surprised that you still find it interesting.

But the disposition of a man's soul is his own sacred choice. And the last person who will ever try to take it away from you would be somebody like me.

It's also a jolly good job I don't believe in souls then, isn't it?

[Will Bouwman]

Are you all shook up over the ante-diluvians, Gary? I wouldn't waste your tears: I think they have enough water already.

Do you really think that your God killing almost the entire human race is material for a joke?

Given who they were, it's cause for celebration.

Clearly you don't believe all humans are

... a deliberately created and deliberately loved product of God Himself.

...the Bible says, "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Jesus Christ was a bit late for the antediluvians.

That's the thing about God: He's not bound by time. He knows who will and won't respond to His free offer of salvation.

Then what was the point of sending Jesus Christ?

And then there's Noah. Noah was saved, as was his family. He was saved by believing God, when everybody else would not.

So Noah and his three sons managed to find the four antediluvian women who weren't 'unrelentingly wicked'. What are the odds?

Perhaps you forgot that part of the story, Will.

Given what you said here:

Let's take the axiom, "Slavery is wrong." We probably all agree with that, right?

you have clearly forgotten this part of the story:
“Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
Genesis 25-27
Just as I think Christianity's threat of eternal torture was inspired by Plato's Myth of Er, I think it is also probable that the story of Noah's Flood was inspired by antecedent flood stories, notably the Epic of Gilgamesh. Given all that, it is far more likely that the Bible is a very human pastiche, rather than the word of its central character.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really think that your God killing almost the entire human race is material for a joke?

Given who they were, it's cause for celebration.

Clearly you don't believe all humans are

... a deliberately created and deliberately loved product of God Himself.

God is "...longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." But God is also just, Will, and has "purer eyes than to look upon sin with favour." The way is always open, but the way is not always taken. And in the end, judgment comes, and is righteous.

Jesus Christ was a bit late for the antediluvians.

He wasn't too late for Moses, Abraham or Elijah, and they were all before his time.

That's the thing about God: He's not bound by time. He knows who will and won't respond to His free offer of salvation.

Then what was the point of sending Jesus Christ?

The death of Christ was not time-bound in its efficacy either. That much, we know from the salvation of OT saints like Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Daniel, etc.

I think it is also probable that the story of Noah's Flood was inspired by antecedent flood stories, notably the Epic of Gilgamesh. Given all that, it is far more likely that the Bible is a very human pastiche, rather than the word of its central character.

Well, it's interesting that some sort of flood narrative is very, very common in human mythologies, especially in places widely separated from one another. There are, in fact, over 200 of them. Now, your explanation might be one way of trying to account for that. Mine, is certainly another. The only question is, which is the right one?

And then the more important question. If God did judge the world once before, will He judge it again, more finally? 2 Peter 2:9 gives us the conclusion we are supposed to understand from the Flood narrative: "...then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from a trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment..."

[Immanuel Can]

I don't condemn people without having what I consider to be a good reason,

There's a difference between having a reason (meaning "a motive"), and having reason (logic, rationality). You've got the first one, alright; but the second is missing. You've got nothing rational, nothing that could or should convince another person.

There are occasionally situations where I might want to convince someone of the rightness of my moral view,

We all want our societies to be just, I hope. And we all want to treat others in ways they believe are fair, just as we do. So morals have to reconcile, if that sort of sympathy is to happen. If you can't convince anybody of your moral view, you can't be sociable, and they can't be sociable with you. You can't build a society on principles everybody agrees are fair. You can't have courts or a justice system. You can't have people who are even happy within whatever society you have. You can't do business without agreement, or settle on a proper manner of life. On your side, you'd have to regard them as unjust, and they would have to regard you as something like morally inferior to their own preferences, at the very least. And that's not how we live, is it?

None, apparently, as he was allowed to carry on with what he was doing until he dropped dead of his own accord.

And then? Well, if Stalin knows anything, he knows now.

And what good is that to anybody?

It means justice came to Stalin after all. Don't underestimate that.

But something being written down...does that make it more or less reliable.

It doesn't make it anything other than just words on a page.

You know the answer: it doesn't change anything, either way.

And as for "old," what impact does age have on the truth value of a claim?

The longer ago that something was written down, the harder it is to verify the identity of its author, and the truth of any claims it makes. The fact that it was written a very long time ago means that whoever wrote it would have held many beliefs that we now know to be nonsense. The main thing that needs taking into consideration is that it is religious text, and if you just examine your own attitude towards religious texts that are not of your own particular religion, I'm sure you will see how much truth value I am suggesting we give it.

That isn't due to their age. Age will not render any document less truthful either. If it was not truthful in the first place, it will remain so; if it was truthful, it will remain so.

....all the accusations of irrationality you have levelled at me.

Not at you. At the view called Subjectivism. It wasn't a personal attack at all. And the inability of any Subjectivist to explain his legitimative framework is clear evidence of irrationality in the view.

All I can say then is that it's a jolly good job God doesn't exist, or I would really be in trouble, wouldn't I?

What an interesting choice: to be facing one's own inevitable death, and to be aware that it would be a bad thing for one if God does exist, and not even to entertain the thought of doing anything about it...not such a "jolly" or "good" thing, I should think.

You must be very used to my flippant attitude towards God by now, so I am pleasantly surprised that you still find it interesting.

I find it ironic, anyway. That's something like humourous, sometimes.

[Harbal]

There's a difference between having a reason (meaning "a motive"), and having reason (logic, rationality). You've got the first one, alright; but the second is missing. You've got nothing rational, nothing that could or should convince another person.

There are occasionally situations where I might want to convince someone of the rightness of my moral view,

We all want our societies to be just, I hope. And we all want to treat others in ways they believe are fair, just as we do. So morals have to reconcile, if that sort of sympathy is to happen. If you can't convince anybody of your moral view, you can't be sociable, and they can't be sociable with you. You can't build a society on principles everybody agrees are fair. You can't have courts or a justice system. You can't have people who are even happy within whatever society you have. You can't do business without agreement, or settle on a proper manner of life. On your side, you'd have to regard them as unjust, and they would have to regard you as something like morally inferior to their own preferences, at the very least. And that's not how we live, is it?

That's all very well, but quite irrelevant to me. I don't usually find myself trying to convince anybody of anything in the cause of morality. I just try to behave towards other people in a way that I judge to be morally correct. I might hope they behave towards me in a similar way, but I don't particularly expect it, and am not surprised when they don't. This seems to work pretty much okay for me, and very occasionally someone might even show signs of appreciation at my conduct towards them. You can shout out that subjective morality doesn't work as often as you like, but it is the only kind I know of, and it seems to be working just fine to me.

And then? Well, if Stalin knows anything, he knows now.

And what good is that to anybody?

It means justice came to Stalin after all. Don't underestimate that.

It means no such thing. Stalin just carried on doing his thing right up to his death, and that is all that can be said. The subjective/objective distinction between moralities made absolutely no difference to that.

The longer ago that something was written down, the harder it is to verify the identity of its author, and the truth of any claims it makes. The fact that it was written a very long time ago means that whoever wrote it would have held many beliefs that we now know to be nonsense. The main thing that needs taking into consideration is that it is religious text, and if you just examine your own attitude towards religious texts that are not of your own particular religion, I'm sure you will see how much truth value I am suggesting we give it.

That isn't due to their age. Age will not render any document less truthful either. If it was not truthful in the first place, it will remain so; if it was truthful, it will remain so.

Well I have explained why I don't think the Bible should be taken as an account of factual events, and I think my reasoning is sound, so we will just have to disagree, as usual.

But, fact or fiction, I do not see much value in it as a guide to morality.