On the basis of Morality.

Originally posted by cathedral
This morality question is a problem, as I tried to say in my first post on this thread, morality to someone who thinks they are going to live forever is very different to the morality of someone who believes this life is all there is.

To the immortal thinking people, war is justifiable as is all the other things believers indulge in.

War to someone who thinks this life is all there is, is pure insanity, as is all the other stuff believers waste their time on such as worrying about what other people are getting up to ect, for a mortal thinking person the only things worth doing are those things which make life valuable

i am a immortal being and i find no justification for war of any type. as a matter of fact, in my world view it's better to let someone harm me, than take defensive action which harms them in return. however, that would not stop me from protecting my wife and 5 children with no hesitation. i would gladly deal with the ramifications to know that they are safe.

if you look at things like this in meditation without ego, the line between right and wrong, just and unjust, the saved and the damned become impossibly blurred. this is due to the fact that ego and emotion color our world views to create a sense of what is "right."

so yeah

cheers,
AA

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Republican08

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Abortion.

Morally wrong in that it is a life.

Athiests see it as a developed zygote with the potential for life and not to be treated as such.

-Apologies if this has been discussed-

I am an agnostic - most would label me as an atheist, but I refuse to believe anything, because I don't ascribe to the notion of objective truth, therefore all belief is unfounded.

On the subject of abortion - I think it is an act of violence, therefore it should be weighed carefully as to whether there is justification for that act.

In some cases - perhaps where a child is going to be brought into the world suffering, then I can see justification.

It is a difficult decision - but one that I think is not a legal matter, rather it is a matter for the conscience of the mother to decide what is right for her and her child, because the child is part of the mother during pregnancy.

At that point where the baby could be removed from the mother and live independently - at that stage it appears to be independent life - and law could then be observed. At what exact stage could the child be removed and be independent from its mother .. that might be a medical question.

reply to post by Amagnon

It’s natural to want to steal and murder? What kind of freak show are you?

I'm not a freak show. I don't believe these things are moral, but they are a part of nature are they not? Animals kill each other in the wild and compete for food with each other do they not? They even kill their own species and eat their own young sometimes do they not? Is this natural? Of course it is. Well if there's no god, then I'm just an animal too right? How are these things not natural for me too? Are you saying humans do not kill each other?

If there is no god then how could any behavior be unnatural? If there is no god then isn't it true that nothing exists outside of nature? All behaviors would be natural behaviors would they not? Therefore they would be justified. Unless you're saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is justified? But then again that would just mean you agree with me.

People are born with a conscience - I don't see any evidence that it came from God - because everyone has one, no matter what religion they belong to - or even if they are atheists.

I never said humans don't have a conscious. They are amoral as explained to me by my long time atheist friend. However, they live by rules they have collectively agreed to follow for the advancement of the species. But I agree with you and not them. I've told them the same you have told me because that's what it says right in my Bible. Just like you said.

Again, we have a conscience - and it tells us what is right and wrong, we don't need someone else to tell us.

Of course we have a conscious that tells us what is right and wrong. It tells me so right in my Bible. I’m glad to see that we agree here. My evolutionists friends have told me different. They say our natural behavior has simply evolved and is neither right nor wrong, but it depends on what behavior is best naturally selected for in the given enviroment. This is why a dog will hump your leg for no reason. Humping anything that moves is an effective mating method for the dog I guess? Anyway, but the action itself would be considered morally wrong.

But Since I’m a Christian I already perfectly agree with you that each person knows right from wrong and it's not just naturally evolved behavior which is different than a moral.

Nope - pedophilia is wrong.

Yes, we agree again. How awesome! I think it is deadly wrong and immoral and against everything my conscious tells me, but my evolutionists friends disagree. They say it’s just another type of mating style selected for by natural selection. This is why animals in the wild don’t have age restrictions on sex. They start mating as soon as they’re ready. Do you disagree? Well you’ll have to take that up with the evolutionists again that have told me this. I already agree with you here.

To do so disrupts their feelings and minds, not to mention their bodies. Also there can be no offspring if they are not sexually mature. It is not consensual - because the child has no sexual desire, and no understanding of the act.

Again I absolutely agree with you. The evolutionists however have told me these things such as being mature and the effects on the mind and body may not be important at all. Just like a turtle does not need to understand it is being mated with. All that’s important is that they breed offspring that can be naturally selected for. If pedophilia is an ineffective mating method natural selection will weed those genes out, but they seem to be increasing because I hear more about it on the news everyday.

I personally believe is wrong, but my friends again tell me it's just another natural mating method that may or may not work, but it is not morally right or wrong. If you disagree you should discuss it with people that believe in evolution.

Orgies undermine the feelings of closeness associated with sex.

No doubt that’s the truth! Again I agree! But my evolution supporting friends say that closeness is not important unless it results it more offspring. If it doesn’t, that does not mean that it is wrong or immoral. It simply means that it’s not an effective mating strategy and will get selected out naturally. But I don’t buy this, but you may want to take it up with the evolutionists because I already agree with you.

You have no moral high ground to be talking about peoples rights.

I agree with you again! The question is not if I have the moral high ground. I of course do not. The question is do humans have morals at all?

Obviously if god is not real they do not. They simply have agreements and rules they have decided to follow that can be changed at anytime and built in natural behaviors they have inherited from natural selection. However, there is nothing inherited right or wrong or good or evil involved.

The atheist's methods even have some pros. If the situation changes they can adapt much more quickly by simply deciding to change their agreements. You cannot do this in a religion. Morals are much more slow to change. I envy them for this.

Your god gave me nothing - and I want nothing from him. That I exist is an inexorable consequence of the processes of time, and the forces of nature.

My freedoms are mine to protect, not granted to me by god - but by virtue of those who went before us and who believed that all men should be born with the same rights of freedom, and to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.

I never said you had to agree with me. You may very well be right. I'm simply writing out the different conflicting views that people believe in. If you don't want to hear the opposing side and just have an atheist love fest than by all means. I didn't know you just wanted a one sided conversation without opposing views.

I'm just saying that the people that fought for the document also thought that Congress should have a legal way to change it. So, if they take away your freedom of speech then you should respect that.

I get my freedom of speech from someplace else though, so I don't have to respect that decision. I will still have my right to free speech no matter what.



[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by Republican08


A religious person, can hold the door for someone at a nearby church, mosque, synagogue or any other congregation. Whereas an someone with no faith, wouldn't be near one of these religious places of worship.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Well atheists make legal agreements with each other. They call them governments. They say I won't steal from you and you don't steal from me. I won't murder you and you don't murder me because I don't wanna die. You don't rape my daughter and I won't rape yours and we all agree that if we do we can punish each other. And everything is based on this agreement.

This leads to the one big thing an atheist can do that a true believer can never do. Take someone's rights away. You see, a religious person believes their rights are given from god and no one has authority to take them away. The Constitution for example would simply be the government accepting that you have those rights, but they would still be there even if the Constitution was destroyed because no man can take them.

An atheist however has no rights. They have agreements with each other. Agreements that can be changed at anytime if enough people get together and decide to change those agreements.

And if they do? You become a hypocrite if you try to fight a war to gain them back. They were taken away through agreement by a government that you agreed to. Maybe not personally, but as a society as a whole you agreed to it and you also agreed to not kill each other and to abide by the laws and agreements you have made with each other. If you do not do so and attempt to fight back without going through your own political process you become a hypocrite via your own moral standards and agreements you've promised to uphold with your own government. No wonder atheist countries are more peaceful.

A religious person however can fight back for their rights though and be justified in doing so and not a hypocrite because they're god given rights and cannot be taken away by man just because enough people agree about it. Like how the US Government is trying to do now. Do you see the difference?

Wow, now that was put well as a "comparative example".. of course.

No wonder atheist countries are more peaceful.

Yeah, most "overwhelming atheist" countries are also authoritarian police states.

This leads to the one big thing an atheist can do that a true believer can never do. Take someone's rights away. You see, a religious person believes their rights are given from god and no one has authority to take them away.

Good stuff.... of course this is uniquely tailored to our current US belief system. The use of religion has been used to do exactly the opposite as many will point out but that is the abuse of power some "organized religious leaders" have perpetrated. Not the belief in god itself.

Great material.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by infolurker]

"What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"

Nothing at all. The question is misleading. I would not accuse an atheist of being an immoral person just for being an atheist.
I would however question HOW they decide what is moral.

I recently had a discussion about Morality with someone religious. They claimed that without god or religion, morality wouldn't exist. My argument is this:

Morality is a tool for social animals to co-exist and survive together. In the animal world, social animals have rules they abide by. The more intelligent the species, the more complex the moral code. We're capable of so much more twisted, sick, and disturbing thoughts than wolves, apes, or any other animal. We would naturally require a more strict sense of morality or we wouldn't be able to work together. You can't live together if you're constantly harming or killing the members of your group. You can't co-exist if you completely abuse those around you, doing whatever you please with no consideration for their feelings or thoughts.

I believe that last sentence is why there is so many problems with the modern world. Everyone is trying to FORCE their thoughts on others, completely dehumanizing the individuals because they have a different belief. I think it's incredibly wrong to ever think of anyone as less than human. That's what people do during genocides to make it easier to murder, rape, and torture. It's in that same spirit, dehumanization, that people justify their actions in war, religion, and pretty much every clash of movements.

Her response was to call me stupid for not seeing "what's right in front of me". Way to win the argument, Christian person.

This is a very fundamental question in human existence. I don't agree that religion is necessary for good moral conduct. I think Jean-Paul Sartre made the best case for this in his Existentialism and Humanism. He argues that, with every decision that he makes,

I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

His philosophy, I think, creates an even greater need for morality, as he sees no excuse and forgiveness in a deity, but instead, absolute personal responsibility for ourselves.

Wow, I could not disagree with the following post more:

Originally posted by tinfoilman
...That's because religion is about rules, restrictions, discipline, and traditions. The purpose is to restrict me from just being nothing but a wild animal. It's what makes me a human being and not a monkey.

What makes you a human being and not a monkey is called:

civ⋅i⋅li⋅za⋅tion
–noun

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.  

Dictionary.com

Also, are you stating that if your religion was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow, you would immediately fall back to your animal instincts and start raping and murdering and stealing? Morals, ethics and values are a product of human psychology. They existed before religion, they still exist despite religion, and they will continue to exist after religion.

...The religious objective is to fight against the natural wild animal urges inside yourself. Religion is about being unnatural...

Now this I can agree with!

For example natural would mean pedophiles are completely acceptable. They are simply trying to pass on their genetic code to a mate as quickly as possible and they probably have a gene in their genetic code that urges them to commit their acts.

First, natural means occuring in nature. Pedophilia is a human condition well outside the norm that is not found prevailent in nature. It is also well known to not be a genetic condition, but is in fact a mental condition. Most times the pedophile was a victim of pedophilia as a child.

I find it highly ironic that what we see in the world is the exact opposite. It's usually the religious people trying to marry the young and producing far more offspring because their god told them to. On the other hand atheists set up unnatural, arbitrary age restrictions for sexual conduct. Especially from an evolutionary point of view where the only reason your 13 year old daughter even exists is for the purpose of getting knocked up and pushing out as many kids as possible before she dies. She serves no other purpose if evolution is true and yet evolutionists try to postpone this as long as possible.

Laws regarding the age of consent were established by a mostly religious society.

Well atheists make legal agreements with each other. They call them governments. They say I won't steal from you and you don't steal from me. I won't murder you and you don't murder me because I don't wanna die. You don't rape my daughter and I won't rape yours and we all agree that if we do we can punish each other. And everything is based on this agreement.

Societies form governments. Since the faithful greatly outnumber the non-faithful, I fail to see how atheists could possibly form a government without the full consent of the faithful.

This leads to the one big thing an atheist can do that a true believer can never do. Take someone's rights away. You see, a religious person believes their rights are given from god and no one has authority to take them away.

The religious have been stripping the rights of others away since the dawn of religion: Christians vs. Lions (the Roman punishment for heresy), Egyptians vs. Jews (slaves for countless generations until Moses showed up), Christians vs. Paganism (the inquisition was a brutal subversion of rights and dissention). Most recent and notably, Proposition 8 in California, which took away the right to marry for homosexuals after the right had been granted.

The Constitution for example would simply be the government accepting that you have those rights, but they would still be there even if the Constitution was destroyed because no man can take them.

Really!?!? Well, why don't you book a flight to Iran or China, and see if those 'God Granted' rights are respected!

...We also see the true colors of this country. It is in fact not a Christian nation after all here in the US. If they were truly religious they would realise those rights are not theirs to take.

Apparently you were asleep during civics class. The U. S. has never been, is not now, nor shall it ever be a 'Christian nation'. It is a secular nation. Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that.

That's the difference between us. To you my freedom of speech only exists because you agree to still let me have it. But your freedom of speech exists because my god gave it to you forever.

Again, travel around the world a little and see just how 'God' given those rights are...

Morals, ethics and values have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion just happened to scoop them up and make them their own. They are principles and values that are inherent to a human civilization if it is to succeed, or in evolutionary terms, survive. Many different religions, both ancient and current, many different cultures both ancient and current, from all across the globe have shared the same basic set of morals, ethics and values. This alone should show that it is a part of the human condition and psychological makeup, and not based on the spiritual beliefs of the individual or culture.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Originally posted by Trams
reply to post by Republican08

 

A religious person, can hold the door for someone at a nearby church, mosque, synagogue or any other congregation. Whereas an someone with no faith, wouldn't be near one of these religious places of worship.

I've visited churches, with friends and have held the door open. I'm completely capable of doing it.

true, there is no moral act that an atheist could not perform. Also, "atheist" does not necessarily denote an absence of religion. Buddhists are atheists, although they follow a strict religious structure to escape the illusion of reality after death.
The difference is a reverence, or something bigger than yourself (or belief in a soul even in absence of a God creator). I seriously doubt any atheists that follow dawkin's line of thinking (whom, by the way, gives one of the most childish arguments against God with his Spaghetti Monster story) could sit silent and meditate on their self and purpose for hours on end. Why? This type of atheism comes out of anger and resentment toward what are obviously corrupted religious establishments of these ignorant times. Sometimes religion can cloud the truth, sometimes it can help you find it...but the issue is much larger than whether or not someone is an atheist.

Ethics and morality are things that have existed before religion and would still exist without it. These days though, both concepts are tied with religion in most parts of the world. Maybe this is because ideas such as an omnipotent God keep people in check and deter them from doing bad things.

For example, if people are stranded on a desert island for several months and they are completely isolated from any others, what laws would be in place to stop people from doing immoral things? (Think 'Lord of the Flies'). If you wanted to carry out immoral acts such as rape, torture, theft etc. and you did not have a strong sense of morality let's say, what would stop you from doing these things at the expense of the welfare as others around you?

"What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"

The question is flawed because adhering to a religion itself does not make a person moral or immoral. An atheist, observer, religious person or agnostic technically has the potential to act ethically or unethically regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe like others have stated that morality and ethics are NOT absolute, objective concepts.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Monkeys have their own civilization and culture too. A very primitive one. Civilization does not make them human. They're still monkeys. Unless you're saying that what makes me a human is that we build buildings? What's the requirement there? You're not an advanced creature unless you use concrete? Monkeys also have been shown to use tools. Are birds human beings now because they build nests?

We're not humans because we have advanced civilization. Let monkeys go wild in New York and they won't suddenly start walking and talking like humans and go to work everyday. You have it backwards. We have advanced civilization because we're human. Not the other way around.

Also, are you stating that if your religion was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow, you would immediately fall back to your animal instincts and start raping and murdering and stealing?

I wouldn't personally? But have you read the papers lately? What do you think people are doing? You can't even hardly let children play outside anymore without fear of being kidnapped by a pedophile. They act like animals.

Morals, ethics and values are a product of human psychology.

That type of moral is different than a never changing rule set passed down by a one true creator. In your definition a moral is simply a code of conduct that people agree about how one should act in relation to others.

A code of conduct though can be changed at anytime. That's different than the morals I'm talking about. Perhaps two different words should be used to describe these two things.

I never denied that atheists have a code of conduct that they live by, but that can be changed at anytime. That is true, but not what I'm talking about.

First, natural means occuring in nature. Pedophilia is a human condition well outside the norm that is not found prevailent in nature. It is also well known to not be a genetic condition, but is in fact a mental condition. Most times the pedophile was a victim of pedophilia as a child.

Actually it is found in nature. My brother just got a new dog today that's too young to mate and the first thing the adult dog they already had did was try to hump it. Even though both dogs are the same sex and there is no chance for them producing offspring. I'm sorry you're just plain wrong here.

Mental means nothing. From an evolutionary point of view mental behavior is just another trait that arises from a physical process. It may be true that it is a mental condition, but it's not right or wrong. It's just something natural selection will either eventually select for or against. Just like when a wild animal kills another one for food. It does not matter that another animal is the victim. All that matters is mating and natural selection takes place.

Laws regarding the age of consent were established by a mostly religious society.

Yeah this is more of the ironic flip flopping I'm talking about here.

Societies form governments. Since the faithful greatly outnumber the non-faithful, I fail to see how atheists could possibly form a government without the full consent of the faithful.

Yes but this is irrelevant to the conversation.

The religious have been stripping the rights of others away since the dawn of religion:

Perhaps another reason I call the religious ignorant and misled. They are not aware of their own purpose. But it does not matter. There is no god so these people that have no rights are simply animals anyway. All that matters is who produced more offspring. That's what determines what is the correct behavior in evolution. Since they have produced more offspring than atheists then their methods must be the correct ones.

You may not like religious people, but their methods simply evolved through natural selection and must have done so for some reason.

Really!?!? Well, why don't you book a flight to Iran or China, and see if those 'God Granted' rights are respected!

This is irrelevant. They are just animals that live by a different code of conduct than we do. They don't require rights if there is no god. They require to reproduce and as long as they do then their methods are also applicable and an alternative. They may want rights, but mother nature does not care. Mother nature only cares about reproduction.

Apparently you were asleep during civics class. The U. S. has never been, is not now, nor shall it ever be a 'Christian nation'.

That's what I just said. What I was saying is that the religious people are misled when they think this is a Christian nation. It never has been nor was supposed to be. Even when you agree with me you attack me. Why?

Again, travel around the world a little and see just how 'God' given those rights are...

Well obviously god is not real then correct? Again then if god is not real it is not important to me they have no rights. They're simply animals. All that's important is who breeds more children. That's the genetic code that will be naturally selected for. From mother nature's point of view that is all that's important.

Morals, ethics and values have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion just happened to scoop them up and make them their own. They are principles and values that are inherent to a human civilization if it is to succeed

Again we're simply using the same word again to describe two different things. I'm talking about inner program that god has put in the hearts of men. You're talking about social behaviors that have been passed down through evolution because the cultures that had those values produced more offspring and agreed upon code of conduct that can be changed at anytime. I don't disagree that those things exist.

But you're simply arguing with me about the definition of the word. Not the concept.

Your type of morals is neither right nor wrong. There were other cultures with completely different sets of ethics, but they simply didn't produce as well and faded out. But again it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's just simply whichever method produces more offspring is the surviving method.









[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Sorry I had to reboot. But I wanted to add. You're wrongly drawing a line between humans and animals when you say pedophilia is a human behavior and therefore not natural. It does not matter if it's only a human behavior. It is still natural.

Remember, if there is no god then we are simply animals just like monkeys and foxes and horses and all that.

There is no requirement that one must observe a behavior in two or more species before the behavior is considered natural. You must only observe the behavior in one species.

Since there is no god humans are a species. Therefore to observe the behavior in a single human means that you have observed the behavior in nature and the behavior is therefore natural. Therefore all things that humans do are natural.

Remember, if there is no god there is no supernatural realm. There is only the natural realm and all that exists in that realm is natural. For something to be unnatural it would need to be influnced in some way via some supernatural source.

But it's a good thing I believe in super natural realms and don't believe that those behaviors are natural so I can say they're wrong. The only thing the evolution crowd can say is that sex offenders are completely natural. How comforting.

I suppose that ethics and morality can exist without a God. However, there will never be things like absolute ethics, morals, or truth without a God. These things will always be subjective and change over time or between different groups of people.

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Republican08

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Abortion.

Morally wrong in that it is a life.

Athiests see it as a developed zygote with the potential for life and not to be treated as such.

-Apologies if this has been discussed-

I am an agnostic - most would label me as an atheist, but I refuse to believe anything, because I don't ascribe to the notion of objective truth, therefore all belief is unfounded.

On the subject of abortion - I think it is an act of violence, therefore it should be weighed carefully as to whether there is justification for that act.

In some cases - perhaps where a child is going to be brought into the world suffering, then I can see justification.

It is a difficult decision - but one that I think is not a legal matter, rather it is a matter for the conscience of the mother to decide what is right for her and her child, because the child is part of the mother during pregnancy.

At that point where the baby could be removed from the mother and live independently - at that stage it appears to be independent life - and law could then be observed. At what exact stage could the child be removed and be independent from its mother .. that might be a medical question.

A baby that is 1 year old cannot live independently. So is killing a 1 year old ok? How about a 2 year old? 3? 5? They have taken premies as young as 4 months and have treated them and they have grown to adults. There is definitely a moral consideration to the sactity of a life.

reply to post by mikerussellus


The question was.

What can 'you' do as a religious person, that I cannot do morally.

Not what can I do, and you cannot.

reply to post by Republican08


Well if say my religion was Islam, then I could kill you for being an infidel. I am not threatening this, just giving you a hypothetical.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember, if there is no god then we are simply animals just like monkeys and foxes and horses and all that.

Just like animals ?

Funny, but it seems that you despise (and it looks like you are ashamed of) those before you, our predecessors and those who do not know better.

I have nothing but a deepest respect for our fellow animals ...

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Since there is no god humans are a species

And if there IS God what are we then then a species ?

Oh, my, aren't believers in God ("supernatural") feel lil' bit special today

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember, if there is no god there is no supernatural realm.

False. Nobody knows what is and if there is anything beyond this realm. If it is, God is not necessary even then, only to those who seek for supreme father-like authority

Originally posted by tinfoilman
But it's a good thing I believe in super natural realms and don't believe that those behaviors are natural so I can say they're wrong.

Of course it's good.

Because every time you use God as a cover when you judge somebody by saying "God hates it" makes it look (to you) like you are really not judging but merely agreeing with God. Fascinating.

To the rest of us it looks, well, just plain silly

I've need for an understanding how a sense of morality and survival of the fittest can coexist.
seems like having cake and eating it too.

Of course at face value they can coexist but when you get down to it, they're anaethema to each other.
I used a new word, horribly.