March 25, 200719 yr Stuff So your argument is that you put words in my mouth? I never said anything about "questioning," now did I? Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Did you read this bit of 'stuff'? Sorry if I didn't adress your point correctly, I'm not perfect. What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species. So you're suggesting that there is absolute morality as defined by evolution? Yes, I'm offering it as an alternative to a theists view.
March 25, 200719 yr Did you read this bit of 'stuff'? Sorry if I didn't adress your point correctly, I'm not perfect. Sorry. I'm confused as to the entire point of your post then. Yes, I'm offering it as an alternative to a theists view. But Astra's point is in counter to the idea that absolute morality doesn't exist. You can't counter his point by agreeing with him that absolute morality does exist. That doesn't make logical sense. You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr I was referring to questioning others, not forcing what you think is right onto them. You can't say no one has the right to question something; that's being a dictator. Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Anyway, aside from that, perhaps there are a set of absolute morals and they manifest themselves in the form of our concious which came about through evolution. I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof as I haven't actually done a whole lot of reading into it, but it may be true. Sorry, but we weren't talking about questioning others. I said, "I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?" I said nothing of questioning someone's views, but of stopping them from acting on those views. No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species. What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing? What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species. I asked why we should be moral without a transcendent standard, you said evolution and survival of the species. If I'm an evolutionary fluke and don't believe that survival of the species is good, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
March 25, 200719 yr No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged. That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on? Ok, I'm gonna let this one slide and concede defeat. I'm assuming your knowlege of the bible outweighs mine which I'm certain it probably would. The point I wanted to adress is that no, he dosen't 'know.' He can believe he knows all he likes, but that dosen't make it the truth.
March 25, 200719 yr The point I wanted to adress is that no, he dosen't 'know.' He can believe he knows all he likes, but that dosen't make it the truth. We can agree to disagree on this one. You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr Did you read this bit of 'stuff'? Sorry if I didn't adress your point correctly, I'm not perfect. Sorry. I'm confused as to the entire point of your post then. Yes, I'm offering it as an alternative to a theists view. But Astra's point is in counter to the idea that absolute morality doesn't exist. You can't counter his point by agreeing with him that absolute morality does exist. That doesn't make logical sense. I was just arguing for an alternative for the source of the absolute morality. Did I ever say that absolute morality dosen't exist? If so, kindly point it out so I can see where I went wrong.
March 25, 200719 yr I was just arguing for an alternative for the source of the absolute morality. Did I ever say that absolute morality dosen't exist? If so, kindly point it out so I can see where I went wrong. Read his response. You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr I was referring to questioning others, not forcing what you think is right onto them. You can't say no one has the right to question something; that's being a dictator. Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Anyway, aside from that, perhaps there are a set of absolute morals and they manifest themselves in the form of our concious which came about through evolution. I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof as I haven't actually done a whole lot of reading into it, but it may be true. Sorry, but we weren't talking about questioning others. I said, "I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?" I said nothing of questioning someone's views, but of stopping them from acting on those views. No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species. What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing? What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species. I asked why we should be moral without a transcendent standard, you said evolution and survival of the species. If I'm an evolutionary fluke and don't believe that survival of the species is good, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Ok, I'll agree with you that if there are no absolute morals, no one has the right to act on thier morals against another with differing morals. The whole point I was attempting to express, which it seems I didn't do quite so well, was that evolution could be an alternative for the source of absolute morals instead of god in which case it would be reasonable to force people not to kill each other as it is detrimental to the survival of the species.
March 25, 200719 yr Accept religion, it's there and it's not going away anytime soon. To each their own, let science prosper as well, and then just leave the rest to the individual person. Just my two cents anyway. I'm in a philosophical mood. :boohoo: Me doing staff.
March 25, 200719 yr The thing about Religion is that we'll never know if any god(s) are real or not until we're gone. Not necessarily after we die, perhaps a good deal of time afterwards, but we probably won't be able to relay a message back to Earth. Right now, I'm hoping that God (Imma Christian, see?) exists, but it seems like a sham. Something people turn to for comfort. However, it is necessary in culture so the people are afraid of something, keep them doing good deeds, and thus keep them in line. If there are any god(s) out there, they sure haven't taken interest in Earth for a good two thousand years. Unless you're a Mormon...or some cult follower.
March 25, 200719 yr Intarweb, there is no society where stealing is acceptable amongst all it's people. I don't even have to look it up to tell you that is false. If tehre is a society of people who all steal, they'd all be pissed off at eachother for stealing from eachother. Your wrong. Anthropologists have discovered several tribes in the Pacific where stealing is acceptable. As for killing people, some people, like the infamous cannibals and stuff, do that as part of religion or whatever. Don't knock their views n' stuff. But in all seriousness, there are also no societies where murder is fine and dandy amongst it's people. They may murder OTHER societies, but if you're going to argue that that means they accept it as "right", then you're saying Western society says it's cool to do too...You know...Iraq and all... Wrong again. There are tribes in Ecuador where killing other people is actually how you GET into Heaven. It's not considered a bad thing at all. Like I said, that's part of their religion if they think it's okay to kill someone. Any NORMAL person knows better than to kill someone. And I'm still going with that there are no tribes who steal amongst themselves and find it okay. Stealing from others, perhaps, but not from themselves. And even Western Society steals from others, sooo... I do believe I am right, not wrong. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
March 25, 200719 yr I'm not capitalising this because i'm angry or anything, it's just a point I want to stress. I MAY NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO JUDGE SOMEONE'S ACTIONS BY ABSOLUTISTS MORALS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RELIGION, BUT I AM WELL WITHIN MY REASON TO JUDGE THEM BASED ON THE LAWS SET DOWN BY A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON CONSEQUENTIALISM AND UTILITARIANISM. We have to judge actions without one religion. Living in a multi-cultural society we cannot judge everyone's actions for practical purposes by absolutist religious morals. Another point, why do you as Christians cherry pick your morality from the Bible? You don't follow all the rules set down in the Bible, I know, because they're outdated. But if you really believe in the concept of an absolute good and evil which is set down in the Bible, why not follow it to the letter? By not taking the fundamentalist view do you have a right to judge other people's morals when clearly your absolute morals are generally fairly conservative. No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged. That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on? Again, i'm no expert, but I did understand that Evangelical Protestants believe exactly what warrior said. Another point i'd like to make. We only need religion and the concept of a God to have absolute morals, not the actual existence of a God. I could write a book tomorrow with differing moral absolutes and a fake God backing it, and what would be the difference? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
March 25, 200719 yr 1. Now you're back to morality based solely on fear of punishment, on which the general consensus here is that it is not a good enough reason to be good. So being ostracised from a community isn't a good enough reason for doing good? It works for the rest of the life on this Earth, why not us? Even on these forums you see it in action, people asking for advice on countless topics fearing the negative consequences if they don't make the right choice. 2. An absolute moral system does not require a law governing every action. It requires, at least, only one absolute moral law. I believe there are far more than one moral laws, but I certainly don't believe that there is a moral law for every single action. Even in the Bible, some decisions are left up to personal conviction, such as eating meat. If morals are absolute, then there would be no reason why some actions wouldn't have morals laws associated to them. What makes the action of murder any different to the action of eating meat or logging forests? People pass judgement over these actions regardless of whether you say a moral law is associated to an action or not. If your moral laws aren't associated with every action, then there isn't any way in knowing what actions have laws and which do not; it would be completely subjective. Gee you don't think that the same mechanisms for determining morality associated with lawless actions such as slaughtering animals for food couldn't be applied to law bound actions such as murder? If some morals are subjective what makes other morals magically objective and free from subjectivity; your stance is a contradiction. I guess cherry picking what you like and don't like is bound to cause such problems, Cognitive Dissonance for the win.
March 25, 200719 yr Like I said, that's part of their religion if they think it's okay to kill someone. Any NORMAL person knows better than to kill someone. Do me a favor? Find an example of a normal group who has had no religious influence on their life at all. And I'm still going with that there are no tribes who steal amongst themselves and find it okay. Stealing from others, perhaps, but not from themselves. And even Western Society steals from others, sooo... I do believe I am right, not wrong. Okay. But you're wrong. If you want to live in denial of it that's fine though. I don't care either way. You do realize that you have now qualified your position so much you have been forced to admit that you believe in our natural state without religion, killing people outside of your own society is perfectly moral. Do you honestly believe that? Again, i'm no expert, but I did understand that Evangelical Protestants believe exactly what warrior said. Then I'd assert that they haven't read the Bible. Another point i'd like to make. We only need religion and the concept of a God to have absolute morals, not the actual existence of a God. I could write a book tomorrow with differing moral absolutes and a fake God backing it, and what would be the difference? But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference. You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr Another point i'd like to make. We only need religion and the concept of a God to have absolute morals, not the actual existence of a God. I could write a book tomorrow with differing moral absolutes and a fake God backing it, and what would be the difference? But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference. Explain please. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
March 25, 200719 yr Another point i'd like to make. We only need religion and the concept of a God to have absolute morals, not the actual existence of a God. I could write a book tomorrow with differing moral absolutes and a fake God backing it, and what would be the difference? But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference. Explain please. Absolute morality means there is a right and there is a wrong. If we have a concept of God to define absolute morality, who doesn't exist, then we are just defining it for ourselves. That means that morality is only APPARENTLY absolute, because there isn't actually anything that says it is absolute. It's not absolute just because everyone might agree, it's absolute when it is STILL the definition of right and wrong, even when not a single person on the planet thinks so. The difference between your book and a God that actually defined absolute morals is the fact that your God doesn't exist. The rules you came up with may be absolute in YOUR belief - as in they are unchanging no matter the circumstance in your belief - but there is nothing absolute about them for all existence. When we talk about absolute morals we don't just mean a clear definition of right and wrong - we mean something that is absolutely right and wrong - was absolutely right and wrong before existence - and will be absolutely right and wrong after existence. It's a right and wrong that transcends our Natural world. It exists no matter what. Your absolute morality can be compared to a building that one might build, and claim that it is indestructible. Even if everyone on the planet agrees that it's indestructible, it doesn't make it so. Something could still destroy that building. Whereas what we mean by absolute morality is a building that IS indestructible. Even if everyone on the planet denies the indestructibility of the building, it is STILL indestructible. Am I doing anything at all to clarify this? You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr Yeah, that's made it a much clearer point thanks. The thing is though, and I know this is a tired argument, but your God cannot be proven (or disproven). It would be just as easy for Moses to have laid down the Decalogue himself as a basis for a way to live your life. It may have then been believed by thousands and millions, but that doesn't make your God any more real than my made up god. Is the existance of absolute morality a debateable subject? I'm curious. Surely since the existance of God is such a debateable subject, therefore if one doesn't believe in God I can also not believe in absolute morality, which I am inclined to do so. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
March 25, 200719 yr Yeah, that's made it a much clearer point thanks. The thing is though, and I know this is a tired argument, but your God cannot be proven (or disproven). It would be just as easy for Moses to have laid down the Decalogue himself as a basis for a way to live your life. It may have then been believed by thousands and millions, but that doesn't make your God any more real than my made up god. Is the existance of absolute morality a debateable subject? I'm curious. Surely since the existance of God is such a debateable subject, therefore if one doesn't believe in God I can also not believe in absolute morality, which I am inclined to do so. If absolute morality is dictated by a god as he suggests, then yes, it is as debatable as the existance of god which is essentially unprovable for or against.
March 25, 200719 yr A few things: I KNOW im going to heaven when i die, you guys dont. No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged. hate to break it to you but... God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life i knw im going to heaven :) Say what you mean and mean what you say because those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter.
March 25, 200719 yr Intarweb, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but 'kay. I never said anything remotely like that. I said that even our society, which is mostly religious of some sort, will kill people outside of our own society. And nice job with the little ninja-insult to 1/3 of the world. I like it when you guys imply that we're not "normal" unless we have religious influence. I have no religious influence, and I'm completely fine - Better than some religious people, you could argue...Because some religious people are NUTS-O, plain and simple. I'm very sound-minded. You'll never see what I'm saying because you're not allowed to. God doesn't allow that you question his absolute power and uber-ness. The bottom line, however, is that this "Morality without God doesn't exist" crap is just that - Crap. For the last time, I *do not* believe in some deity who is going to slap my wrist for being a bad boy, but I *STILL* know that if I killed someone, I would feel very bad for taking their life. It has NOTHING to do with being raised in a culture that says murder is wrong and everything to do with common sense. You don't take someone's life because, A-DUH, you don't want yours taken from you. Golden Rule thing. But of course, you'll just assume that I'm some stupid ape that would go around killing everyone if the Bible was never written. You're only insulting yourself aswell by saying that, but whatever. Not really my problem. You guys have fun arguing the complete pointlessness of "Absolute Morality" all day. We had a thread already with 10 pages of that complete nonsense, and I'd rather not take place in it again. I know I'm right, you know you're right, so what's the point? The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
March 25, 200719 yr The bottom line, however, is that this "Morality without God doesn't exist" crap is just that - Crap. For the last time, I *do not* believe in some deity who is going to slap my wrist for being a bad boy, but I *STILL* know that if I killed someone, I would feel very bad for taking their life. It has NOTHING to do with being raised in a culture that says murder is wrong and everything to do with common sense. You don't take someone's life because, A-DUH, you don't want yours taken from you. Golden Rule thing. But of course, you'll just assume that I'm some stupid ape that would go around killing everyone if the Bible was never written. You're only insulting yourself aswell by saying that, but whatever. Not really my problem. Bold: That's exactly in line with what we've been saying: If there is absolute morality, and God has instilled it in humans, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, you will still know right and wrong. All your saying is, "I don't believe in God, but I still know right and wrong." How is that different from what we're saying? Italics: You've already made this accusation, and we've already answered it. Stop attacking statements we never made, and even explicitely denied making. To everyone else who responded to me, I'll respond after lunch. :) "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
March 25, 200719 yr I present to you an example of a society that functions well without religion: China, a country of over 1.6 billion atheists! The less than 5% assorted Buddhists, Christians, and others have little to no impact on the 95% majority. The closest thing to a religion we Chinese have had in our 5 thousand year history was a belief in the divine power of the Emperor, and assorted myths. Even then, we recognized that the emperor was still a person, despite his importance. The law is secular and based and designed only to keep order in society. If the largest country on earth (population) can function without a religiously based moral code, anyplace on earth can. Religion did not make morals. Morals are a purely human concept that has nothing to do with god, who may or may not exist.
March 25, 200719 yr Agressor, that only works if you blatantly ignore the entire history of China as a country - which you can't do. You crampin' my style.
March 25, 200719 yr Agressor, that only works if you blatantly ignore the entire history of China as a country - which you can't do. Uh...can you elaborate on that?
March 25, 200719 yr Agressor, that only works if you blatantly ignore the entire history of China as a country - which you can't do. Uh...can you elaborate on that? Are you going to deny the religious and pseudo-religious influences on Chinese culture over the thousands of years its been a country? Because that would be one of the silliest thing I've ever heard of. You crampin' my style.
Create an account or sign in to comment