April 2, 200719 yr Author So both absolute morality AND non-absolute morality exists? That's the silliest stance I've ever heard. I'm sorry - but it is NOT arrogant to believe something is true. My ultimate belief, then, is in non-absolute morality. I believe people can have their own belief that their morals are absolute, as long as they respect others morals and acknowledge the possibility that while they believe their morals to be absolute truth there is a chance they aren't. I don't think there's one magical set of morals out there that will send you to heaven while the rest won't, so I don't believe in absolute morality. I think as long as you use good moral judgment, if there is a God, he would accept atheists if they lived moral lives close enough to his objective morals set down for followers.
April 2, 200719 yr So both absolute morality AND non-absolute morality exists? That's the silliest stance I've ever heard. I'm sorry - but it is NOT arrogant to believe something is true. My ultimate belief, then, is in non-absolute morality. I believe people can have their own belief that their morals are absolute, as long as they respect others morals and acknowledge the possibility that while they believe their morals to be absolute truth there is a chance they aren't. I don't think there's one magical set of morals out there that will send you to heaven while the rest won't, so I don't believe in absolute morality. I think as long as you use good moral judgment, if there is a God, he would accept atheists if they lived moral lives close enough to his objective morals set down for followers. So you believe that morality is absolute on a person-by-person basis?
April 2, 200719 yr Morality is an evolutionary advantage You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made? I'm sure. Would you please provide me with some biological evidence to show me what causes morality? I'll confess now that I am absolutely no expert on this, so i'll instead refer you to some more authoritive sources. One approach argues that moral codes arefounded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were naturally selected in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness) Reciprocity ensures a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals - This looks to be a very good book as well, worth a read if you're interested. Again, Wikipedia Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary. Here's an interesting article on it all, with some fascinating conclusions at the end if you want to skip the bulk of it. When you think about it, morality as an evolutionary advantage absolutely makes sense. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
April 2, 200719 yr The problem with the information is that it is entirely speculative and based on behavior, not biology.
April 2, 200719 yr You are making up your own definition for arrogance. My point was simply that if you take God out of the equation, it is consistent to take morality out of it as well. According to insane there is room for discussion as far as I can interpret his post: take out god and you'll have to take out morality because that is consistent. I saw no "I believe" in his posts which would have been more than appropriate stating something contraversional as he did. I'll repeat, stop saying that I make up my own definition of arrogance. You're just wasting your own and my time. :roll: So where did these simple rules of logic originate? I don't have to defend me on that point, religious people don't either. Plus I believe the answer is self-explanatory enough. I wasn't justifying it. I just thought it was humorous that you were offended by one "arrogant" person showing his "arrogance" towards another "arrogant" person. I doubt he makes a difference between atheists and agnosts, because agnosts don't believe in a god either, but whatever he did not say agnosts specifically. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 2, 200719 yr The problem with the information is that it is entirely speculative and based on behavior, not biology. I'm sorry, but what? Did you properly read any of the links? Behaviour is governed by biology, and the years and years of research that's been done on the subject is not entirely speculative, it's based on increments of facts compiled together and complex analysis of data to produce a clearer picture of morality. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot more reliable than a concept of absolute morals given to us by an absolute power. Now that's speculation. Another point I'd like to make. I do not think that atheism is arrogant at all. I do not believe it is arrogant at all to think that something doesn't exist when there is evidence against the existence of a God. Religious people are making the claim that a God exists, therefore the burden of proof rests with them, if anything (until they can in theory prove it) they're the arrogant ones. You wouldn't call me arrogant for not believing in fairies, would you? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
April 2, 200719 yr According to insane there is room for discussion as far as I can interpret his post: take out god and you'll have to take out morality because that is consistent. I saw no "I believe" in his posts which would have been more than appropriate stating something contraversional as he did. I'll repeat, stop saying that I make up my own definition of arrogance. You're just wasting your own and my time. 1. Of course it is insane's belief - that is assumed. You have no room in serious discussion if you think "I believe" should preface every belief. Read The Republic. Read The Prince. Read the Nichomachean Ethics. You know what all of those great works have in common? They are all the beliefs of the writers, yet none of them had to preface their books with "I believe." 2. Read the definition of arrogance. It has to do with self-worth, not the declaration of knowledge. I don't have to defend me on that point, religious people don't either. Plus I believe the answer is self-explanatory enough. It isn't. You are claiming to believe logic can produce morality, and any good logician knows that this is logically impossible. If you can't defend your statement, you have no right to boast of your "logic." I doubt he makes a difference between atheists and agnosts, because agnosts don't believe in a god either, but whatever he did not say agnosts specifically. Big difference between atheists and agnostics. An atheist firmly believes God doesn't exist - and agnostic has no belief one way or the other. Talking about the "removal of God" is a reference to someone who firmly believes there is no God; ergo atheists. I'm sorry, but what? Did you properly read any of the links? Behaviour is governed by biology, and the years and years of research that's been done on the subject is not entirely speculative, it's based on increments of facts compiled together and complex analysis of data to produce a clearer picture of morality. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot more reliable than a concept of absolute morals given to us by an absolute power. Now that's speculation. There isn't biological evidence for morality. Let me put it to you this way: How do we know that our hearing is a result of the brain? Another point I'd like to make. I do not think that atheism is arrogant at all. I do not believe it is arrogant at all to think that something doesn't exist when there is evidence against the existence of a God. Religious people are making the claim that a God exists, therefore the burden of proof rests with them, if anything (until they can in theory prove it) they're the arrogant ones. You wouldn't call me arrogant for not believing in fairies, would you? No, but I wouldn't make the claim that any of those groups are arrogant.
April 2, 200719 yr Locke, your assuming that if absolute morality does not exist then subjective morality would become universal. It's true that A and -A can't both be moral, however if morality isn't universal (since it is subjective to the individual) then for one person A can be moral, and the next -A can be moral. The whole point of subjective morality. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 2, 200719 yr It isn't. You are claiming to believe logic can produce morality, and any good logician knows that this is logically impossible. If you can't defend your statement, you have no right to boast of your "logic." Proof? No right eh? Don't see any use in continuing these stupid yes/no games with you on the other points. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 2, 200719 yr I'm sorry, but what? Did you properly read any of the links? Behaviour is governed by biology, and the years and years of research that's been done on the subject is not entirely speculative, it's based on increments of facts compiled together and complex analysis of data to produce a clearer picture of morality. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot more reliable than a concept of absolute morals given to us by an absolute power. Now that's speculation. There isn't biological evidence for morality. Let me put it to you this way: How do we know that our hearing is a result of the brain? I don't know if you're perhaps referring to some metaphysical concept with that question, but I don't think you want the real scientific answer, because there is one. In reference to your first statement, i've just shown you that there is biological evidence for morality but you're either refusing to read it or refusing to accept it. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
April 2, 200719 yr Locke, your assuming that if absolute morality does not exist then subjective morality would become universal. It's true that A and -A can't both be moral, however if morality isn't universal (since it is subjective to the individual) then for one person A can be moral, and the next -A can be moral. The whole point of subjective morality. No I'm not, as evident of my saying this: So you believe that morality is absolute on a person-by-person basis? But if you want to go down this road... under that route, if A is moral for person 1 and -A is moral for person 2, then person 1 would have to believe that person 2 is wrong. If this is the case, then person 1 is being "arrogant." Proof? No right eh? Don't see any use in continuing these stupid yes/no games with you on the other points. It is logically impossible to cross the "is/ought gap" which would be a necessity in producing any moral statement. If you can prove that the is/ought gap can logically be crossed, you will have done something that no logician has ever done in the history of recorded history. However, my guess is you will not offer any such suggestion. I don't know if you're perhaps referring to some metaphysical concept with that question, but I don't think you want the real scientific answer, because there is one. In reference to your first statement, i've just shown you that there is biological evidence for morality but you're either refusing to read it or refusing to accept it. Maybe I just missed it when I read all of that. If morality is biological, there would be physical evidence for this, but I didn't read anything about physical evidence for this. Where is it?
April 2, 200719 yr How is it logically impossible to make morality out of logical thoughts? If that were the case, God would be a proven fact. I can easily use logic to make a moral. I know that shooting someone in the face means that they are gone forever and it will devistate those who cared about that individual. That alone makes me logically think "Hey, maybe that isn't the right thing to do, then?", and thus, a moral is born. But of course, you'll just say I only say that because I was raised with that moral. Which is BS, because noone has EVER, to this day, told me "killing someone is immoral." You just KNOW it isn't to be done. You see what happens when people are murdered...What it does to their families, and what it does to the person who did it. It's pretty easy to observe that. But since you're going back to the very first moral person...We'll play that game. And you're still wrong. Even before the God of the Jews was ever written about, people knew what was right and wrong. They didn't follow the Bible. It didn't exist. You'll, of course, say God instilled this morality in them, which defeats everything I say via the "God is omnipotent" argument. THAT is illogical thinking, but to you, it's perfect. There is no proof of God, however, so you're only assuming. I might be a little more inclined to believe the BS you're spewing if there was only one claimed God with one set of morals...But there are MANY God's with MANY different morals. What does that tell me? That at best, only one God and one set of morals is right, and at worst (and more realistically) there are no God's, and all God's are made up by humans and the morals are aswell. But oh well...You're welcome to practice Islamic morals any time you want. No really, go ahead! What's that...? You think they're immoral? Well, they're moral to them...Hmmm...Seems humans make up their minds on what's moral and what isn't afterall... Edit: Oh yea, and I win! The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
April 2, 200719 yr Maybe I just missed it when I read all of that. If morality is biological, there would be physical evidence for this, but I didn't read anything about physical evidence for this. Where is it? It's been proven that morality has proven advantages for natural selection, a proven theory. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
April 2, 200719 yr Locke, your assuming that if absolute morality does not exist then subjective morality would become universal. It's true that A and -A can't both be moral, however if morality isn't universal (since it is subjective to the individual) then for one person A can be moral, and the next -A can be moral. The whole point of subjective morality. No I'm not, as evident of my saying this: So you believe that morality is absolute on a person-by-person basis? But if you want to go down this road... under that route, if A is moral for person 1 and -A is moral for person 2, then person 1 would have to believe that person 2 is wrong. If this is the case, then person 1 is being "arrogant." I disagree, does that make me arrogant? Disagreement does not equal arrogance. If we accept there is no absolute morality, by that people would realize that their moral view is not absolute. While they think it to be correct, that does not mean it is. They would understand that humans are falliable not divine, and so their views can be falliable. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 2, 200719 yr Maybe I just missed it when I read all of that. If morality is biological, there would be physical evidence for this, but I didn't read anything about physical evidence for this. Where is it? It's been proven that morality has proven advantages for natural selection, a proven theory. No it hasn't. It has been proven that certain behaviors have advantages - there is no proof that morality is biological. Given two different scenarios, opposite behaviors can have advantages for natural selection. This has nothing to do with morality. I disagree, does that make me arrogant? You clearly didn't read the origin of this discussion. I won't continue discussing with you.
April 2, 200719 yr Yes I did. Im not talking to you in the same thread of debate as you have with these other people. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 3, 200719 yr Please, try not to label people who have a lack of belief in your god as anarchists as if we are anamalistic savages, it really is quite annoying. Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no? It is consistant to assume non-morality for atheists according to your belief. It really does puzzle me why theists continually come up with the amoral atheists argument when it's wrong. I and other atheists are living proof that atheists can be moral beings - it really is that simple. And as for morality coming from ourselves and us doing 'whatever we want' and still being moral... what?... just look around at the atheists of this planet, do they all do whatever they please? No, the vast majority abide by laws. Why? Becase they are moral beings, perhaps? If you want an explanation for this, it lies in evolution and behavioural genetics. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml#2 Just say, as it has been shown, that behaviours lie in our genes (although a tad more complex than one gene coding for one behaviour etc). We inherit bad behaviours, right? Animals inherit the behaviours of thier parents, in many cases (well, in all cases. It's not like you see animals of the same species acting drastically different). Just say that these behaviours are the result of natural selection and make that animal best suited to it's biological society and aid in it's strength and longevity, not unreasonable, correct? Now take the behaviours that humans have evolved to best suit our biological community and label them 'morality' collectively. Make sense to anyone out there? A simple yes or no and why will do.
April 3, 200719 yr Apparently I need to clarify my point since Duke thinks I'm arrogant and Warrior thinks that I think he's immoral. Duke: When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality, making morality subjective. That's all I meant. Calling yourself "moral", doesn't really make sense as "moral" doesn't have a definition outside your own beliefs. Everyone is moral according to themselves if morality is subjective, making the term obsolete. Warrior: I believe atheists can be moral people, but that is because I believe in God. I believe that if God exists, everyone can be moral, including atheists; I believe that if God doesn't exist, nobody can be moral, including Christians. We inherit bad behaviours, right? What's a bad behaviour?
April 3, 200719 yr Apparently I need to clarify my point since Duke thinks I'm arrogant and Warrior thinks that I think he's immoral. Duke: When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality, making morality subjective. That's all I meant. Calling yourself "moral", doesn't really make sense as "moral" doesn't have a definition outside your own beliefs. Everyone is moral according to themselves if morality is subjective, making the term obsolete. Warrior: I believe atheists can be moral people, but that is because I believe in God. I believe that if God exists, everyone can be moral, including atheists; I believe that if God doesn't exist, nobody can be moral, including Christians. We inherit bad behaviours, right? What's a bad behaviour? Good to see some things were cleared up. By a bad behaviour I would suggest a behaviour that does not aid or harms an animals standing in a biological relationship i.e. a community which requires co-operation and relationships. It's a bit more complex for humans; we feel that we can behave freely which gives us an illusion of strength, I suppose. Anything with humans is more complex, for obvious reasons. Aside from us, it's pretty clear that bad behaviours are at a minimum in the animal world and my segestion for the reasonin why would be evolution. Do you think that morality coming from the evolution of behaviour has any grounding? Take a scientific stance for a second.
April 3, 200719 yr Apparently I need to clarify my point since Duke thinks I'm arrogant and Warrior thinks that I think he's immoral. Duke: When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality, making morality subjective. That's all I meant. Calling yourself "moral", doesn't really make sense as "moral" doesn't have a definition outside your own beliefs. Everyone is moral according to themselves if morality is subjective, making the term obsolete. Warrior: I believe atheists can be moral people, but that is because I believe in God. I believe that if God exists, everyone can be moral, including atheists; I believe that if God doesn't exist, nobody can be moral, including Christians. We inherit bad behaviours, right? What's a bad behaviour? Good to see some things were cleared up. By a bad behaviour I would suggest a behaviour that does not aid or harms an animals standing in a biological relationship i.e. a community which requires co-operation and relationships. It's a bit more complex for humans; we feel that we can behave freely which gives us an illusion of strength, I suppose. Anything with humans is more complex, for obvious reasons. Aside from us, it's pretty clear that bad behaviours are at a minimum in the animal world and my segestion for the reasonin why would be evolution. Do you think that morality coming from the evolution of behaviour has any grounding? Take a scientific stance for a second. Regardless of evolution or not what insane is saying has to do with God. So including evolution in the picture doesn't remove God. Looking at scientifically doesn't remove God. Scientifically it is possible that evolution has something to do with bad behaviors but realistically God could possibly be behind that anyways. So if there is no God, insanes hypothesis is there could be no morals. So what does taking a scientific stance accomplish? They seem very parallel to me. You are looking at a very small window and insane is looking at the possibilities.
April 3, 200719 yr Apparently I need to clarify my point since Duke thinks I'm arrogant and Warrior thinks that I think he's immoral. Duke: When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality, making morality subjective. That's all I meant. Calling yourself "moral", doesn't really make sense as "moral" doesn't have a definition outside your own beliefs. Everyone is moral according to themselves if morality is subjective, making the term obsolete. Warrior: I believe atheists can be moral people, but that is because I believe in God. I believe that if God exists, everyone can be moral, including atheists; I believe that if God doesn't exist, nobody can be moral, including Christians. We inherit bad behaviours, right? What's a bad behaviour? Good to see some things were cleared up. By a bad behaviour I would suggest a behaviour that does not aid or harms an animals standing in a biological relationship i.e. a community which requires co-operation and relationships. It's a bit more complex for humans; we feel that we can behave freely which gives us an illusion of strength, I suppose. Anything with humans is more complex, for obvious reasons. Aside from us, it's pretty clear that bad behaviours are at a minimum in the animal world and my segestion for the reasonin why would be evolution. Do you think that morality coming from the evolution of behaviour has any grounding? Take a scientific stance for a second. Regardless of evolution or not what insane is saying has to do with God. So including evolution in the picture doesn't remove God. Looking at scientifically doesn't remove God. Scientifically it is possible that evolution has something to do with bad behaviors but realistically God could possibly be behind that anyways. So if there is no God, insanes hypothesis is there could be no morals. So what does taking a scientific stance accomplish? They seem very parallel to me. You are looking at a very small window and insane is looking at the possibilities. First comment: Possibly, The purpose of my posts are to give an alternative to a source of 'godless' morals, if you like. Second comment: What does science accomplish? look around you, my friend; a hell of a lot. And I'm looking at a small window? he suggests that morals come from god and that without god, there are no morals, which is fine. I suggested another possibility in the form of evolution... What exactly are you trying to say in all of this?
April 3, 200719 yr XplsvBam and Insane: Neither of you are taking into account that God, today, very well may not exist, and thus we would still have these morals anyways. And even if he DOES exist, people had these morals before God let us know what they were. You can argue he automatically instilled them in us all, but that's a stupid argument, and why would he feel the need to tell us, then? But whatever, believe what you guys want. God = Morality and the rest of us just don't get it. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
April 3, 200719 yr XplsvBam and Insane: Neither of you are taking into account that God, today, very well may not exist, and thus we would still have these morals anyways. And even if he DOES exist, people had these morals before God let us know what they were. You can argue he automatically instilled them in us all, but that's a stupid argument, and why would he feel the need to tell us, then? But whatever, believe what you guys want. God = Morality and the rest of us just don't get it. But there point is that those morals would be subjective, not objective, morals, and thus fairly worthless. God, theoretically, is the source of absolute morals. We are sources of subjective morals. Feel free to correct me if I didn't understand your points; I'm not speaking for them, just interpreting. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
April 3, 200719 yr XplsvBam and Insane: Neither of you are taking into account that God, today, very well may not exist, and thus we would still have these morals anyways. And even if he DOES exist, people had these morals before God let us know what they were. You can argue he automatically instilled them in us all, but that's a stupid argument, and why would he feel the need to tell us, then? But whatever, believe what you guys want. God = Morality and the rest of us just don't get it. But there point is that those morals would be subjective, not objective, morals, and thus fairly worthless. God, theoretically, is the source of absolute morals. We are sources of subjective morals. Feel free to correct me if I didn't understand your points; I'm not speaking for them, just interpreting. exactly...
April 3, 200719 yr Yet they're still the morals they follow...And everyone else follows. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
Create an account or sign in to comment