It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who are more moral? Men or women?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You'd need to appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind for it to be applicable for/to all mankind.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


The bible has no place in today's morality debate.

Morality doesn't come from judgement either. Placing a punishment on perceived immoral behavior only reinforces a sense of rebellion. Enacting laws is a civil tool, used to regulate society, usually to the benefit of wealthier citizens. Laws don't dictate morality. Ideally they are there to protect the innocent, but in reality they protect and reinforce TPTB.



Really? We have morality from birth? What happened to the real crazies in history? Were they not taught right?

Do you believe that people are psychotic because they don't read the bible or know god?

I believe in both nature and nurture in the development of a whole human being. Most people feel pain when they hurt others. I remember crying as a baby when my mom pretended that I had hurt her, or when my father played that beautiful music on his violin.

Most behavior is "taught" by reinforcement. You give a kid candy every time they cry, you're gonna get a spoiled child. I'm not saying that every individual doesn't have challenges to overcome. But I do believe that morality is etched into our instincts. (See Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene") Altruism is a natural instinct. It doesn't have to be taught by a bible or in a church.

What I don't believe is that we're all wretched sinners, who haven't a clue how to live together without some moldy old book and preachers threatening eternal punishment. I don't believe the bible is god's word.



Listen, if you feel you should be ok to go hurt someone and not recognize they are a victim, then go ahead.


I never advocated to go hurt people. I said the bible and religion doesn't "corner the market" on morality. An atheist can be a moral person.



Prove to us that anarchy is the best form of morality. Does it really and truly work? I think you know the answer to that one. But, if anarchy is what you want because you don't want TPTB to be in charge, then go ahead and try anarchy and let us know how it works out for you, especially when someone else who does not believe in the law hurts you. Without the law, there should be no justice for you because you have shirked it.


So not buying in religious mumbo jumbo is anarchy? Again, you Christians don't own the rights to define morality. The bible does not teach morality, at all! Show me where it does, and I'll show you a 100 scriptures that simply promote immorality in that book.

Please don't judge my morality or sense of justice, you're only proving my point.

Look around you and smell the corporate coffee, the laws are written to protect the rich and powerful. If you happen to benefit from them, that's just a side effect.



No morality equals total anarchy. Is a world of total anarchy what you are promoting? So what happens when they smash your car to smithereens because you have one and they don't? Can you take them to court for it? No. Morality is defined in the Bible.


I said that morality is an instinctive behavior, you're the one that's saying that I'm promoting anarchy. I never said any such thing. I just don't buy that the law should be written around out dated desert folklore that's 2000 plus years old. The bible has no place in the legislation of today's laws!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword
 


You'd need to appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind for it to be applicable for/to all mankind.


By "it" you mean morality? No I don't think one would need to or could appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind. Mankind, and mankind alone is responsible for mankind.

You can't write legislation based on the idea of an angry sky wizard and superstition and then expect an educated, civil society.
edit on 1-2-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword
 


You'd need to appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind for it to be applicable for/to all mankind.


By "it" you mean morality? No I don't think one would need to or could appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind. Mankind, and mankind alone is responsible for mankind.


You'd be thinking wrong. Without an appeal to something higher than mankind, morality is relative, from one person to the next.


You can't write legislation based the idea of an angry sky wizard and superstition and then expect an educated, civil society.


Expect the society to what? Your last statement makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword
 


You'd need to appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind for it to be applicable for/to all mankind.


By "it" you mean morality? No I don't think one would need to or could appeal to a moral authority higher than mankind. Mankind, and mankind alone is responsible for mankind.


You'd be thinking wrong. Without an appeal to something higher than mankind, morality is relative, from one person to the next.

Morality is always subjective and relative. There is no place in today's society for legislation written according to biblical scripture. There is no higher authority on earth than man's authority over mankind. As far as your spirituality, you're on your own. No laws should regulate that.


You can't write legislation based the idea of an angry sky wizard and superstition and then expect an educated, civil society.




Expect the society to what? Your last statement makes no sense.


You can't expect.............an educated and civilized society.
edit on 31-1-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Nothing is relative, it's either moral to murder or rape people or it's not.



You can't expect.............an educated and civilized society.



Really? Why have SAT scores plummeted and the ills of society skyrocketed in exponential curves since God was removed from the classroom in the 60s? In theory you'd think you were correct, but the practical example we have before us shows the exact opposite to be true.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword
 


Nothing is relative, it's either moral to murder or rape people or it's not.



You can't expect.............an educated and civilized society.



Really? Why have SAT scores plummeted and the ills of society skyrocketed in exponential curves since God was removed from the classroom in the 60s? In theory you'd think you were correct, but the practical example we have before us shows the exact opposite to be true.


Why in the world should your god and religion be endorsed in the classroom? Please show me where, in the bible, it says that rape and murder are wrong. I will show you where it is ordered.

Please show me how much more our children are lacking in education today as compared to the statistics of the '60's. Please include accurate records of the disenfranchised school districts from those days as well.

Kids today, even in our "ghettos" are computer literate. There are more ways to become trained for a job today than in the '60's. The world is a smaller place today, cultures are blending. We are becoming a wiser and more tolerant society everyday, compared to our history, despite what the MSN tells us.
edit on 1-2-2012 by windword because: ocd



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
The old testament says a lot of bad things about women.. how you can't sit in a chair they have sat in if they are on their period because they are filthy or unclean..etc. etc.. other ridiculous things.

Moral people don't believe they are more morale than all members of the opposite gender though.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)


So the moral people that run politics and religions do not consider women less moral than they are yet those men have chosen for some other reason to not give them equality.

Care to tell us what that reason is?

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Who are more moral? Men or women?

I am not an atheist but am a man who, thanks to apotheosis, believes himself to have high morals. Perhaps even superior to women.

I will take the Jewish view of Eden as man’s elevation as opposed to the Christian view that Eden was man’s fall. I do this because the Jewish view was the initial view of their scriptures. I give their view more authority than I do to Christianity. That Jewish view was later reversed by Christianity. Why Christianity did this is not clear.

www.mrrena.com...

For this mental exercise, I say women are more moral than men. I take this view because teaching a topic is the best way to learn it, and that most of the child rearing/teaching in that day was done by women. Women then, teaching children their first morals, would also teach themselves morals faster than what men would.

I do not read scriptures literally but will use the literal view and my logic trail and progression through Eden as if I do.
Eve was first to eat of the tree of knowledge, and as scriptures states, became as God. That is, she developed the same moral sense as God. She then recognized that instead of leaving Adam to follow God’s instruction to not eat, she chose, with her new wisdom, to have Adam also eat of the tree of knowledge. Thus both were elevated to having a moral sense.

Is the Jewish view the correct one?

Who should lead mankind in religious and political thinking?

Who are more moral? Men or women?

Regards
DL


Oh god, another sexism thread...can't we all just admit no one is perfect, whether their genitalia are female or male?

Honestly, I don't think morals are grounded in the sexual anatomy of a person! And I doubt testosterone and estrogen have any significant influence either, or scientists would have confirmed it.

Interesting thoughts, but primitive at best. Carry on with your sexism debate, but I'm only going to rage at the arrogance. I'm not saying your wrong...I'm just saying you probably aren't right.


Check, please.


Then prove it. Or stay in your mind set of denial.

If men of today were moral, they would be pushing for equality of the sexes and the fact that they have the power and do so and do not shows beyond a doubt that the present morality of men suck and by men holding this ground, whatever improvements women can do will never be known. Men in wasting this resource show just how foolish and immoral we are.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Anyone who say women are more moral than men, probably hasn't had much experience with them.
We're equally immoral.


If men of today were moral, they would be pushing for equality of the sexes and the fact that they have the power and do so and do not shows beyond a doubt that the present morality of men suck and by men holding this ground, whatever improvements women can do will never be known. Men in wasting this resource show just how foolish and immoral we are.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Woman learned all her immorality from Man.


What did Adam do when God asked him "did you eat that which I told you not to eat?"

He blamed Eve.

Eve took the example and blamed the serpent.


... ah the blame game...


What if Adam had been a Man about it and taken the blame.
"Yes, God, I did eat that which you told me not to eat."
He probably would have gotten off with a spanking.

But nooooooo...

Even God knows you can't do anything with someone who wont take responsibility for themselves.


David Grouchy


That would include all those wanting to profit from the murder of Jesus at the hands of his own father.
They will ride their scapegoat whipping boy into heaven instead of stepping up to take on their own responsibilities.

Christianity is based on human sacrifice and is thus immoral.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Why does it matter? What possible benefit could come from an accurate determination? You're surely not suggesting either ALL men or ALL women are "more moral" than the other? You'll never have the opportunity to interact with ALL of anything, so the only possible outcome would be to preemptively skew your opinion of an individual on an irrelevant fact before you have the chance to know them. That may not be immoral, but it isn't very bright.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Much brighter to never pose the question and allow the immorality of the present male dominated systems to just continue unquestioned.
Women will not like your do nothing answer to their problem.

If men of today were moral, they would be pushing for equality of the sexes and the fact that they have the power and do so and do not shows beyond a doubt that the present morality of men suck and by men holding this ground, whatever improvements women can do will never be known. Men in wasting this resource show just how foolish and immoral we are.

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join