There is no such thing as moral or immoral

[no-one-particular]

There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

This is what I grew up on:
The World Tomorrow Program:

Here it is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL71268395367D3087&app=desktop

They taught that the old testament laws were a requirement for all people. I now understand that they were indeed a requirement if you wanted to be Jewish but there was in fact never any requirement that people had to convert to Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
According to the Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah.
Noahidism is just a fancy term for civilization and civilized laws. Or at least, that is what it should be.


Elo-Hym = All-Human = no ego = infinitely logical human beings
YHWH = Ya-Ehud = The Head

Therefore:
YHWH Elo-Hym = The Head All-Human

(A person with no ego would not require sleep. A crucified person stood on a small platform with their arms stretched outward horizontally. As long as they were awake they could support their weight on their feet but as soon as they fell asleep all of their weight went on to their arms causing intense pain which would wake them back up.)

Do All-Humans exist? Its possible.
Do the All-Humans have a head (a leader)? Its possible.

Does "god" exist? No. It does not and could not exist. It is a logical impossibility.

In the modern vernacular the word "god" means a magical entity that magically acts as the source of godliness (morality). "God" is an invention of the autistic mind. Autistic people invent the idea to explain where laws and rules come from. They do so because they dont understand cause and effect and more importantly because they dont understand emergence


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that magically acts as the source of all morality (in the modern vernacular "morality" is a synonym for "godliness" and "holiness") and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is. (Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.) Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

The difference between "moral behavior" and "civilized behavior" might seem like mere semantics but sometimes semantics is important. After all, the difference between "nigger" and "black guy" is semantics


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea.


According to the Bible we are living in Babylonian heaven created by Babylonians at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then they said, “Come, lets build our own city and tower that reaches to the heavens in order to make our own heaven lest we be scattered abroad.—Genesis 11

What kind of person would consider this universe to be their idea of heaven? A universe with Floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, plagues, and animals eating each other. A universe of darkness and confusion. Only a lunatic would consider this universe to be heaven.
According to the Bible we are living in lunatic heaven and lunatics are running the asylum.

Bible=Babel

 

[Keith&Co.]

What kind of person would consider this universe to be their idea of heaven? A universe with Floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, plagues, and animals eating each other. A universe of darkness and confusion. Only a lunatic would consider this universe to be heaven.

When asked why an infinitely benevolent God created a world where His children feel pain, many theists insist that 'hardship builds character.' if we had no adversity, we would be unable to know what we are truly capable of, what is truly important.

They feel that there is JUST ENOUGH suffering to teach us how much we need salvation, but not so much that we, as a species, give up, sit down and rot.

Sounds more than a little masochistic to me, but there you go...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The difference between "moral behavior" and "civilized behavior" might seem like mere semantics but sometimes semantics is important. After all, the difference between "nigger" and "black guy" is semantics

OK, but why are the semantics important in this case? While it is, of course, trivially true that semantics are sometimes important, you then dropped the subject and didn't continue the paragraph to explain how it is that this instance counts as one of those "sometimes".

Your argument seems to be that the most moral position is the one which grants the greatest amount of equality to the greatest amount of people. That is a reasonable moral philosophy, so why not just call it morality?

Hierarchical societies where everyone knows their place can be seen as civilized. Minding your own business and not sticking your nose into other people's private family matters when you suspect someone is beating their wife can be seen as civilized. Allowing powerful organizations to cover up abuse so as not to create a scandal can be seen as civilized. So, you're taking a pre-existing word and giving it a non-standard definition in order to have it convey a concept which is already better expressed under a different word.

If you want to make the argument that a system which maximizes equality is the most optimal moral system, then fine. A good argument for that could be made. Why obfuscate that argument by trying to create a new term in order to pretend that you're not just making a simple moral argument, though?

 

[skepticalbip]

There is no such thing as moral or immoral

That is an awfully amoral thing to assert.

 

[Atheos]

What kind of person would consider this universe to be their idea of heaven? A universe with Floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, plagues, and animals eating each other. A universe of darkness and confusion. Only a lunatic would consider this universe to be heaven.

When asked why an infinitely benevolent God created a world where His children feel pain, many theists insist that 'hardship builds character.' if we had no adversity, we would be unable to know what we are truly capable of, what is truly important.

They feel that there is JUST ENOUGH suffering to teach us how much we need salvation, but not so much that we, as a species, give up, sit down and rot.

Sounds more than a little masochistic to me, but there you go...

The "hardship builds character" argument implies that if this same god is also infinitely powerful it has never experienced a challenge that created for it a hardship, which means this god has absolutely no character. If the god could have character (whatever that is) without the suffering then suffering is not a prerequisite to character. If this god is all powerful it stands to reason it could create people who have character without suffering. The "problem of evil" engine just fires right back up.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The "hardship builds character" argument implies that if this same god is also infinitely powerful it has never experienced a challenge that created for it a hardship, which means this god has absolutely no character. If the god could have character (whatever that is) without the suffering then suffering is not a prerequisite to character. If this god is all powerful it stands to reason it could create people who have character without suffering. The "problem of evil" engine just fires right back up.

Well, maybe he needed to suffer on the path to gaining infinite power, though. For instance, it's possible that one of the steps to gaining this power involved throwing his adopted daughter off a cliff and it really tore him up inside that he needed to make that sacrifice.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps if the lesson is that suffering is good for us then we have just been misunderstanding the true lessons - - sadism is a kindness to our fellow man and masochism is character building.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The "hardship builds character" argument implies that if this same god is also infinitely powerful it has never experienced a challenge that created for it a hardship,

No, no, no one ever said hardship is the ONLY way to build character. But we are not immortal or omnipotent or dotherwise divine, so maybe hardship is the BEST way FOR US to build character.

You have to remember that God is only like us in situations where he benefits from the comparison.

If you complain about God throwing us in Hell, then consider that a father who never disciplines his kids raises unruly brats, so God is like any father.
If you point out that a father who throws his kid into a furnace for swearing is universally seen as a monster, well, you cannot compare The Allfather to mortal men...

 

[Atheos]

The "hardship builds character" argument implies that if this same god is also infinitely powerful it has never experienced a challenge that created for it a hardship,

No, no, no one ever said hardship is the ONLY way to build character. But we are not immortal or omnipotent or dotherwise divine, so maybe hardship is the BEST way FOR US to build character.

You have to remember that God is only like us in situations where he benefits from the comparison.

If you complain about God throwing us in Hell, then consider that a father who never disciplines his kids raises unruly brats, so God is like any father.
If you point out that a father who throws his kid into a furnace for swearing is universally seen as a monster, well, you cannot compare The Allfather to mortal men...

And if you complain that eternal punishment with no possibility of a commuted sentence serves no rehabilitative purpose well... who are you to question GOD?