DiscussMormonism.com

“DP” wrote:My question, to those who believe that “God is dead” (or, less literarily, that God never existed) and that, accordingly, there are no absolute, unconditional, or objective values in the world and that whatever meanings that exist in life are put there by us, by human beings, by “value-creators,” is this:

You may well find Nietzsche’s moral stance above distasteful. I certainly do. But is it “wrong”? Can anything, in a world where there are no objective or absolute values, actually be said to be “wrong”? And, if you believe that it can be, how would you demonstrate to someone agreeing with Nietzsche that he or she is “wrong”?

To take it back to Under the Banner of Heaven and the Lafferty murders, on what Nietzschean basis can you condemn the Laffertys? On what basis, even, can you, if you’re a follower of Nietzsche, condemn alleged Latter-day Saint misogyny, patriarchy, obscurantism, and fanaticism?

This is a very interesting double bind. A double bind is a situation in which a person is confronted with two irreconcilable demands or a choice between two undesirable courses of action.

DP is essentially saying, “yes our religion may be evil but if you don’t believe in our religion then you have no moral grounds for condemning it as evil.”

The larger absolute morality argument is absolute nonsense. Each religion claims it has an absolute morality, and they are all absolutely contradictory. Your morality ends up being completely relative to whatever religion you were raised in or indoctrinated into.

Humanism, for all its faults, is at least an attempt to escape this religious relativist perspective on morality.

Isn't Mormon morality derived, not from God, but from the eternal gospel principles by which the Mormon God gained exaltation?

In mainstream theism, God is the author of all reality, not just an exalted organiser. So I think some typical theists do consider God to be the source of morality. Even in mainstream theism, though, a major school of thought holds that morality exists independently of God. Theists in this school might still insist that it was logically impossible for God to be evil, but not because God defines right and wrong. They would say that God could not make wrong be right any more than God could make 2+2 equal five.

So it would seem that plenty of theists, including Mormons (if we count them as theists), believe in objective morality that is not defined by God. If theists can do that then I don't see why atheists can't do the same, and have objective morality that does not depend on God.

“Dr. Peterson” wrote:To take it back to Under the Banner of Heaven and the Lafferty murders, on what Nietzschean basis can you condemn the Laffertys? On what basis, even, can you, if you’re a follower of Nietzsche, condemn alleged Latter-day Saint misogyny, patriarchy, obscurantism, and fanaticism?

Thank goodness we do not have to observe these horrendous murders or detriments to the human spirit through the filter of a German philosopher. Viewers will see cult members gone wild. The best defense by apologists is to stick your head in the sand and wait for the viewing public to pass by. No need to shout, "Juhu Jungs, seht euch meinen Seherstein hier drüben an".

On what basis? My own moral code I developed over time you dopey animal.

- Doc

DCP invokes the Lafferty's who thought God told them to kill people in a move to condemn non-theists for not having solid grounds to condemn people? I mean, I've heard DCP say this type of thing enough it's certainly expected, but its also silly on the face of it. How does he condemn the Lafferty's unless he assumes it wasn't really God who told them to kill? What if God did tell them to kill just as God told millions of others to kill, as has been claimed? What objective grounds would DCP have to condemn anyone?

The more people talk about God when it comes to the questions of morality, I hear them invoke another person who is as subjectively inspired like the rest of us in developing our morals and then calling that other person God who must be the source of objective morals. Sounds like a tragically circular line of thought in hopes to feel superior to non-believers to me. And in the end, they end up in the same place as everyone else. The whole point from DCP demonstrates, as he appeals to a self-righteous move in hopes, perhaps to guilt others, oddly, that we all can relate to each other when we talk about what is moral and what is not. That alone seems like plenty of common ground to get us moving and keep us going.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Fri May 06, 2022 1:45 pm

On what basis? My own moral code I developed over time you dopey animal.

- Doc

lol

Since believers in different gods (or different 'flavours' of the same god) have radically different views of right and wrong, on what basis can a god-based morality be said to be "absolute, unconditional, or objective"?

Even different believers in DCP's god have different views of right and wrong.

I personally appreciate it when people inform others that they have innate sociopathy that is primarily held in check by a belief in deity. It lets me know who to avoid if they ever become an atheist.

If belief in a particular deity is your only source of ethics and morality, then by all means, please (please) believe.

Here is a link to DP's nonsense in case some want to see yet again how presupposing a god leads to folly: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... rmons.html

"God is dead" doesn't mean that there aren't objective truths or that there are relative truths for that matter. There isn't any good proof for a god much less a Mormon god that worships the stock market. Until there is proof of god, until he/she shows up, then I have to believe that the religious class, like DP, either made it up or are delusional. So, these values DP drones on about as coming from his invisible fantasy god really come from human beings, over thousands of years.

DP's argument strikes me like the fringe group that announces that a given Wednesday during winter will be a show your support for the fringe group by wearing pants. See, he says on Thursday, everyone supports our silly nonsense. They all wore pants!

By the way DP, Mountain Meadows will forever be a stain on our people. Why not come down off the mountain and learn from the mistakes of our ancestors instead of continuing to deflect? Cultish attitudes, the Mormon reformation, the threat of war, and most likely the orders from a paranoid leader led to the tragedy. Thank goodness we were absorbed by society and not allowed to continue in our isolation. Having to adapt via being shamed by society at large helped lead us to our less cult like behavior, less apt to commit mountain meadows like atrocities.