[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the point is that religious folk claim that non-believers lack morals because they do not follow rules given to them by a deity.
That’s bullshit.
[/quote]
You’re exactly right, that is bullshit. Allow me to fix that:
…that’s equally bullshit; nature is amoral and indifferent…
what about immanuel kants the categoric imperativ or jeremy benthams utilitarisme, thats moralfilosofi without a god in the picture.
[quote]florelius wrote:
what about immanuel kants the categoric imperativ or jeremy benthams utilitarisme, thats moralfilosofi without a god in the picture.[/quote]
Not quite, because Kantz reasoned that “the moral universe within us” is a strong point for the existence of a god.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
You’re exactly right, that is bullshit. Allow me to fix that:
For example, the Mallard duck, which has been observed engaging in acts of homosexual necrophelia and gangrape. But perhaps they went to confession afterwards?
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors. [/quote]
…not quite: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can’t prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
“But the weight of scientific opinion is that it’s certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates.”
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem & Rational Gaze: Only persons can apprehend morality. Only persons can be moral actors. [/quote]
…not quite: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can’t prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
“But the weight of scientific opinion is that it’s certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates.” [/quote]
Obviously we cannot know for sure whether animals are sentient. At least not yet - maybe never.
If there is a spectrum and some animals are more sentient - and they display rudimentary and intermittent “moral behavior” - I fail to see how this helps your position, when it directly bolters mine.
I find this article refreshing. Its an answer to the question of finding morals without some kind of superhero character. It makes me think that we humans are truly capable of great things even without a ridiculous fear of afterlife punishment. We develop morals. They r not bestowed on us. They evolve as needed. We r also responsible for the horrible things we do to one another. I find it pathetic when people use the excuse of god to dismiss their lot in life. Take personal responsibility for your position and your behavior. Believing in something having control over your destiny has slowed the evolution of civilization
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
We develop morals.[/quote]
So morals are socially derived?
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. This is about the most ignorant post on Christianity that I’ve ever read on PWI - and that’s saying a lot. It is precisely Christians who argue for personal responsibility and for free will. It’s many social scientists, psychologists, and some scientists who argue otherwise.
Morals develop because of a need for people to interact with one another. Free will is not a gift it is simply a reality in a free society. No being decided to ALLOW us to have free will. I behave in a way that would be considered morally sound with no fear of punishment. I choose to behave in a Socially acceptable way.
So morals actually are derived socially. Laws and morals are actually biologically based and allow societies to exist and move forward. If the concept of god never existed we would still have laws and rules to guide us forward. I was not posting about Christianity specifically. Religion has been the greatest divider of humans far more devicive than even race. Free will is a state of mind. Of course not all men have the ability to express their own free will into action due to certain historic oppressions of certain groups. Many times those oppressions are faith based. Always wondered why believers never need proof to blindly follow a tough to swallow story when it is looked at objectively.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
So morals actually are derived socially. [/quote]
So if you grew up in a society that thought black people were inferior and should be enslaved, you would agree with that moral order?
Please answer sans wall of text.
Did god create black or jewish slaves. No man did. Laws and morals evolve within society. Again not handed down from a being. If you were raised to believe that god made the world 6000 years ago would u agree with that. Remember their was a time that this society had the view that blacks were inferior and should be slaves. Not any more. I just don’t remember hearing about it coming down from god to stop slavery. It evolved out of our society.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Did god create black or jewish slaves. No man did. Laws and morals evolve within society. Again not handed down from a being. If you were raised to believe that god made the world 6000 years ago would u agree with that. Remember their was a time that this society had the view that blacks were inferior and should be slaves. Not any more. I just don’t remember hearing about it coming down from god to stop slavery. It evolved out of our society. [/quote]
LOL. You might want to read what I actually asked you. And then try answering the question.
If i did follow the group ideas or not has nothing to do with god. My answer is NO. Again morals evolve like in biology. Mutations change phenotypic expression just as a dissenting viewpoints sometimes helps the present moral code to evolve. Someone somewhere had a thought that slavery was morally wrong and that MAN created thought spread to evolve slavery out of this society. Moral extinction of slavery. Free will allowed that anti slavery thought to be conceived.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
My answer is NO. [/quote]
Okay, so let’s perform a thought experiment: pretend you have grown up in a society that believes slavery to be morally correct.
Now, how would YOU determine that slavery is wrong if everyone around you was agreed otherwise?
And while answering, please keep in mind: you’ve already said that morality is determined by society.
Damn…I actually took the time to read most of this and the only concern I have right now is whats for dinner.
Thoughts come from individuals. God would not IMPLANT a morally evolving idea in anyones head. Great people have their own thoughts and express them to a group and if it is beneficial the group will adopt the new idea. Just like a positive mutation changes the offspring in a positive way. Not interested in yor thought experiments at all. I read one of your thought exp somewhere and it went nowhere. To believe in something with no rational basis is pathetic to me. The argument that religious folk use that we need to have a superbeing to have morals was debunked quite well by the original article. Without a pipeline to god I guess our moral code is stuck at the time of the writing of whatever religious book you follow. I guess L Ron Hubbard has the most up to date pipeline. Try reading his stuff.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Thoughts come from individuals. God would not IMPLANT a morally evolving idea in anyones head. Great people have their own thoughts and express them to a group and if it is beneficial the group will adopt the new idea. Just like a positive mutation changes the offspring in a positive way. Not interested in yor thought experiments at all. I read one of your thought exp somewhere and it went nowhere. To believe in something with no rational basis is pathetic to me. The argument that religious folk use that we need to have a superbeing to have morals was debunked quite well by the original article. Without a pipeline to god I guess our moral code is stuck at the time of the writing of whatever religious book you follow. I guess L Ron Hubbard has the most up to date pipeline. Try reading his stuff. [/quote]
Why not try answering my question? Or are you too scared of exposing your ignorance? LOL. Pathetic.
Edit: btw, your rambling, incoherent paragraphs sound a LOT like L. Ron Hubbard. It’s kinda funny you should mention him.
O K I’ll try. Story. As a young boy on my parents plantation a slave rescues me from a well I fell into putting himself in great danger to help me. Later that day my father kills the slave for some silly reason. My young mind finds conflict with my fathers discipline. I grow up to be a great leader of my society and have great influence on people. I express my anti slavery ideas and the group buys my ideas. Slavery is now morally wrong. No god needed. I answered your question with NO. The arrogance you display with these thought exp is amazing. Religious believers are so convinced they are correct and non believers just need to be convinced to join the cult of their choosing. If we don’t agree you can always just kill the infidels. Religion is seriously scary.
[quote]jsal33 wrote:
As a young boy on my parents plantation a slave rescues me from a well I fell into putting himself in great danger to help me. Later that day my father kills the slave for some silly reason. My young mind finds conflict with my fathers discipline. [/quote]
Okay, so you saw your father’s actions and determined those actions to be morally wrong.
On what basis did you make this^^ determination?
p.s. - it’s YOU who keep bringing God up - not me.