Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.

The only thing that changes is the vast almost endless distance between moral behavior and average human behavior. This incredible distance can grow marginally smaller or larger based on human actions, behaviors, and development.

Closing our eyes to the distance, denying it exists, or worse pretending that we have already completed the great journey because we "feel" it to be so does not change the objective reality. Such dilusions mearly drives us into a form of blind insanity.

You ask what the source is for this objective morality? From what or who's authority does it spring? I would respond that you have indeed highlighted the critical question. Indeed I further claim that this question is the most important most fundamental question of our existence. It is a question that can only be answered on an individual level. Only then is the answer internalized. Only then does it become reality for you. My answer as an abstract external thing would be of no use to you.

This lies at the heart of your error. Your great misperceptions that leads you to false conclusions.

A philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin.

If you reject this reality from me perhaps a greater mind then I can help you see it. I have probably shared too many of these videos recently but this one is short so I will make it the final one.

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

I agree that we don't live in a vacuum. C.S. Lewis correctly argues that such a vacuum is impossible.

I also agree that Christianity did not create a new moral code. The code was already there. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently noted Christianity did not create morals it presupposed their existence and universality. The moral imperative is categorical.

You state that your personal beliefs of of not harming animals (humans included) comes from within. I agree that those feelings come from within but would take that a step further and say that those beliefs are not just your meaningless subjective personal feelings but actually represent an objective fundamental reality.

We should refrain from these things not because any one person or many might be bothered by them but because causing unnecessary pain and suffering in our fellow living creatures is fundamentally wrong.

With regards to "progressive values" they are as is everything a mixed bag. Certainly they are most definitely not uniformly good. The most important point in the video is the conclusion. C.S. Lewis demonstrates clearly that almost all modern systems of ethics are in fact bastardized truncations of a greater and more complete moral code.

One by one various "modern" ethics of the 20th century are exposed for what they are incomplete fragments of a greater whole and ultimately self-contradictory. The inevitable result of embracing one of these fragmentary ethics is a predictable loss of freedom.

Hypothetically, Vod what grounding do you think is sufficient to sustain something eternal?

What imaginary pleasure or purpose would not become tedious even torturous after centuries of repetition let alone millennium?

The most compelling and logical vision of Hell that I have read is that it is something we create for ourselves. That Hell is the logical result of grounding ourselves in something insufficient and flawed. A punishment yes but ultimately a self inflicted one.

The following describes this perspective:

Does God Send People To Hell?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiYf6ITgWbk

Actually af_newbie the reality was always there. What we see in the various ideologies of the day are the bastardization and truncations of that basic reality.  
Some ideologies are more complete or less truncated then others. All, however, represent incomplete edits if you will of an original and complete moral foundation.

I have been familiarizing myself lately with the writings of C.S. Lewis. I was previously unaware of the impressive nature and depth of his writing. Here is an narration of his work that I recommend you watch. It's 30 minutes which I realize is long but it is relevant to our recent discussions. If you find the time to watch it I recommend asking the following question as you do.

How does your own ethical code "Do not harm people or animals" fit into the overall debate discussed in the video?

On Ethics by C.S. Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdos6zUk27Q

That is unlikely. It is more likely that you are living in a state of honest error.

C.S. Lewis describes this condition well.

Man or Rabbit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXLlFRLu7mffDdfpUWo6Vl5

If you lean towards pantheism I recommend taking a look at panentheism. It's fundamentally distinct from the pantheism of Spinoza.

Panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine. The following explains the difference between the two perspectives.

Christianity and Panentheism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXLlFRLu7mffDdfpUWo6Vl5&index=11

I have heard this song and dance before.

The submissive flaccidity of hedonism
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/07/submissive-flaccidity-of-modern-secular.html?m=1

Here is a video I think you might enjoy af_newbie.
Its an old paper of CS Lewis the author of the Chronicles of Narnia and other works narrated and put in a video.

I think does a good job of highlighting the differences in the way we look at the world. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXLlFRLu7mffDdfpUWo6Vl5

A short summary is below.
The link at the bottom has a longer explanation.

Visionary,

The trend was there 53 years ago but the decay was and is gradual.

Fair enough from your frame of reference given the assumptions you have chosen to embrace your conclusions cannot be falsified. In the words of Bruce Charlton you have made your Big Decision.

Ignoring your attempts to straw man I agree with your comments on Science. You are, however, missing something critical here. Science is indeed the best objective tool we have to acquire new and highly accurate data about the universe. It tells us very little about truth.

Truth is the process in which we incorporate the data we have about the universe including the data from science and our own experiences into a coherent and accurate picture of the universe. It is a conscious integrative process.

Coherence Theory of Truth
http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm

The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.

This can be done on individual level. On a larger scale it plays out empirically. People live out their belief structures and the logical consequences of their ideologies can be observed over time.

Be at peace af-newbie I am not accusing you of making those particular arguments. They are just the typical arguments I have often seen in some form or another.

Your argument is that the evidence for God's existence is not sufficient to compel you to believe in God so you don't. I understand your position. I also understand why you keep calling me delusional. I simply think you are mistaken.

You are correct that question ultimately has very little to do with evidence. It goes deeper then that and is related to how the available evidence is interpreted in the context of an individuals existing knowledge including the assumed axioms he or she applies when interpreting incoming evidence.

If you truly believe that God does not exist you will find confirmation for your disbelief everywhere. There is not sufficient data to compel you to abandon disbelief. Similarly if you truly believe in God you will find evidence supporting the glory of his existence every day.

The question is like a Bayesian inference that diverges to completely different conclusions when fed the same data set. This is because data itself is not ultimately separate from consciousness. Our knowledge is shaped by new data but new data is also shaped by our existing knowledge.

Given this reality no one will ever be able to prove God to you. However, that inability does not mean God does not exist. Thus instead of approaching the question from the perspective of looking for proof to reject disbelief I recommend instead trying to look at the world holistically from the perspective that God does exist examine how that changes your perspective on things. Then compare that worldview to your current one in its entirety.

Bruce Charlton who is a more eloquent writer then I expressed this in the following way.

The Big Decision about Life...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-big-decision-about-life.html?m=1

Then I won't answer how I determined that. =)
Your wish is granted.

Ultimately people need to decide for themselves what is worthy of worship and why.

Yes they do usually with illogical emotionally laden arguments that typically fall into one of three categories.

1) Nature is cruel thus I decry God.
2) Humans are cruel thus I decry God.
3) I enjoy (insert vice here) and God forbids it thus I decry God.

The arguments are flawed, but to fully appreciate this you must first answer the question of what makes something worthy of worship. Then you can apply that assessment to God. Ultimately each individual needs to decide for themselves.

I found the following book an interesting read. It addresses the common arguments above and others and does so with a very logical approach and structure.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Bible-Exodus-Dennis-Prager/dp/1621577724

Because Zeus is not worthy of worship.


Yes I have and your comparison is poor. A better comparison would be to comparing them to the Amish. Did you know that Judaism is decentralized? Each synagogue and rabbi are not bound by the decisions/interpretations of other synagogues. Similarly individuals within Judaism are free to change to a different synagogue if they wish though this might require moving. The different denominations of Christianity provide a similar function.

No one intelligent wants a state church. That is a terrible idea and a recipe for religious oppression as history shows. A population that is largely and voluntary grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a state church.


It's not about psychological comfort that is tangential. Ultimately understanding God is about accurately understanding reality and bringing our lives into alignment with said reality.

Yes this is my position.


I am unaware of any other organizing framework that appears capable of sustaining the necessary cooperation over time without collapsing into tyranny. Certainly if our goal is only maintaining order there are lots of dystopian options available. Absolute tyranny is good at order.


If you understand the a priori of God you understand that God is infinite. Thus it logically follows that the God of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and any other branches of monotheism are the same God. Infinite by definition means all encompassing.

The differences between these religions represent different understandings of the optimal human relationship with regards to God not different Gods. The three faiths by and large all acknowledge this.

Similarly if an infinite God exists it follows logically that any possible polytheistic entity must either not exist or exist as a dependent of God a creation of God if you will. This again is simple logical deduction derived from the first axiom that an infinite God exists.

As for Saudi Arabia that is a sad state of affairs. The Quran has numerous verses that emphasize belief in the one universal God who judges people according to their behavior. The Quran also states explicitly that in matters of faith there shall be no coercion. Sadly we know that other interpretations and xenophobic elements often predominant.

Borrowing the words of Dennis Prager:
"Muslims need what most Christians and Jews have experienced - separation of church and state; interaction with other faiths and with modernity; and reform. Islam needs to compete with secularism, not outlaw it, and to allow competing ideologies within Islam. In religion, as in politics, when there is no competition, there is corruption and intolerance."


It's no surprise you feel this way. I have accepted a first axiom that you have rejected. I believe in an infinite creator and you do not.

You therefore feel that I am "full of it" and I in turn feel you are blind.

At the end the day the character of the government is dependent on the character of the people. If a population is greedy, lustful, envious, and slothful they will favor leaders and support causes that pander to these vices. Quality of life and governance in general will worsen and the best a systems of checks and balances can do is slow the decay. Similarly if a population is prudent, just, courageous, and charitable then they will elect leaders and support causes promote these virtues.

The real challenge of improving governance over the long term is how do we improve the moral character and virtue of human beings?  This is no small task. Indeed it is the most important aspect of progress. Technological advancement is secondary.  

There is where the Atheist go wrong. Their solutions here always fail. They sometimes go totally nuts and assume humans are some kind of perfect creature if only the environment was adjusted. Thus leads them to crazy ideas like communism which if you read the actual ideology might work ok for a population of perfect selfless sinless angels but predictably collapses into contradiction, horror, and tyranny when applied to actual human beings.

Or they go the other way and embrace total relativism. They deny the existence of good and evil altogether everything is just preference. There is no value in anything. Anything socially accepted is "good" anything not is "bad". This leads to a willful self-annihilation as I noted a few posts back. It also lead many atheist leaders to favor drastic population reductions as a way of maintaining control. They grow fearful of an unruly population and their dependence on an unsustainable debt bubble to keep that population happy thus they start to desire the extermination of said population. This is a time honored strategy of tyrants and well documented. It is even described in the Bible as widespread at the time of Moses birth.

The answer to the challenge of good governance is that every generation must prioritize the moral improvement of each individual citizen. This is the necessary prerequisite to ensure future generations will be better off then current generations. God is necessary to this process for without God we are lost in a sea of moral relativism. Without God we can't even define objective good and evil let alone moral improvement.
 
How Do We Make Society Better?

Every society follows some kind of moral code.

Sometimes that code can be as simple as the strongest rule and the weak are slaves.  Usually it's more complex.

Democratic rule does not prevent tyranny it is not exempt from injustice and immorally. Review the history of Athens if you want to understand this better.

Tyranny of the majority was one of the greatest concerns of the US founding fathers. It the reasons they took such great effort to limit the power of direct democracy. Everything from the selection of Senators by state representatives, the selection of the president via the Electoral College, and the limits of voting to land owners were all attempts to lower the risk of a tyrannical mob rule.

Your stated standard is "you are automatically a good person if you are following the moral code that your society accepts." This is a very problematic code that highlights the profound detachment from reality your philosophy and atheism leads into.

I noticed you did not really refute my examples above. Via your standard any horror if accepted by a society becomes "good" and the perpetrators of said horror are "good people". With this standard you are lost in a morass of relativism a natural consequence of rejecting the divine.



You lack an understanding of the pivotal role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in facilitating coordination and driving progress over time.

I discussed this topic in some depth here:
Religion and Progress


You were raised religious and brought up to accept and worship God. You and later rejected both that tradition and God. We have real issues of dispute we should not waste our time on word games.

Let's see so according to your logic:

The Soviet Gestapo who forceably resettled presents to collective farms in 1932 leading to the starvation of 8 million were swell folks because they were following the Soviet code.

The Nazi's guards who starved and gassed millions were great guys too because Hitler was elected and widely admired and supported by the German People.

According to you these folks were paragons of virtue following the moral code their societies accepted at the time.

Similarly if you can get a majority to support your desired re-education camps and book burnings that will be great too. I think I understand you better now.


Here is a short video that describes your fundamental problem. You have rejected God, and without God one can no longer properly define good and evil.
Can You Be Good Without God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU