Morals Without God

[nonlnear]

Not sure I agree. Just because we treat something subjectively doesn't mean it's not objective.

A similar argument would be that just because we all think 2+2=5 doesn't make it so. There are objective truths, and I think real morality extends from that.

2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.

 

[Atreus21]

2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.

Dunno, it seems hard to disagree with holding up two fingers, and then two more, counting them up, and getting to four.

 

[nonlnear]

Dunno, it seems hard to disagree with holding up two fingers, and then two more, counting them up, and getting to four.

Well you don't sound like much of a mathematician! More like an engineer...

 

[Atreus21]

Well you don't sound like much of a mathematician! More like an engineer...

More like a soon to be unemployed IT consultant...

Sniffle.

 

[dawp]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux
I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.

I am an atheist and I do not believe that.

that is more of the views a satanist has.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#LaVeyan_Satanism

 

[piasabird]

Some people describe morality to be whatever a specific culture considers acceptable behavior. There can be absolutes and there can also be what is just considered a practice that is established like putting up a Christmas Tree, or fasting during the day for the month of Ramadan.

It is a traditional practice in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to fast on the first sunday and donate the price of one meal. This money used for the Church Welfare system to feed and take care of the Poor. We also use some Tithing for this purpose as well.

In some states in the 1800's it was customary to offer passing strangers to eat supper with you even if you planned on robbing and killing them later. Also In Alaska, motorists are required to stop and give aid to stranded motorists. There are all kinds of morals or customs. Some laws we have today would be considered immoral by many cultures and religious organizations.

It is improper for you to think that spiritual referring to just a religious training or education in religion. In the psychology class and in other classes I have taken, there is a Heirarchy of needs and one of the needs is higher learning and enlightenment. This goes beyond just schoolastic learning. Learning how to take knowledge from several known disciplines and then create a whole new idea, concept or methodology falls under that realm as well.

I have seen lots of shows that stress that the human mind is capable of more than we are taught. This is why some people in sports seem to be able to run faster or do things that other people may not believe is possible. Some peolpe can be trained to walk on fire or break bricks with their bare hands. Logic says this is not possible but it may be quite possible under certain conditions. If you study other areas like Yoga or meditation the main theme is not only to expand your physical well-being but to control your body with your mind. All of these things can be described as spiritual learning.

 

[BoberFett]

The Mayans were illogical. Any system which does not protect the rights of ALL men is illogical and doomed to fail.

It is illogical to think one man may be sacrificial now, and you yourself will not be sacrificial later.

Morality is very objective when thought out to it's logical conclusion. It is very simply a set of rules, mutually agreed upon, to protect ourselves.

You assume sacrifice is feared. What happens when sacrifice is not only acceptable, but desired? If sacrifice is viewed as heroic, then not only are you happy for the person being sacrificed, "morality" may have you hoping to be the next sacrifice.

Morals are not necessarily logical in the sense that you intend. They're merely the prevailing "logic" of any given set of people at any given time, and they're prone to change.

 

[bhanson]

I have seen lots of shows that stress that the human mind is capable of more than we are taught. This is why some people in sports seem to be able to run faster or do things that other people may not believe is possible. Some peolpe can be trained to walk on fire or break bricks with their bare hands. Logic says this is not possible but it may be quite possible under certain conditions. If you study other areas like Yoga or meditation the main theme is not only to expand your physical well-being but to control your body with your mind. All of these things can be described as spiritual learning.

This is explained more easily with physics and science than with spirituality. Logic (science) most certainly does say it is possible or else it wouldn't be.

Spirituality is no different than psychology in early childhood when a child is building his working model of the world. He is training his brain to act in a desired way. Meditation is kind of like adults training their brains (which is nothing more than biology) to act in a desired way.

 

[BoberFett]

Straight from God's mouth..

Absolute and unchanging morality FTW.

It's funny that you should use that against deity based morality, because if you don't believe that god exists, then it wasn't god who put that law into place, it was humans and their ever shifting sense of morality, meaning there is no such thing as objective morality, god or no god.

 

[BoberFett]

What idiot chose rape to study? To be convicted of rape it doesn't only take the indulging of selfish desires over the obvious objection of another; it is still rape when there is lack of intent and misinterpretation (neutral or not) explains the gulf; and conviction for rape still occurs when a woman has regrets and convinces herself after the fact that she didn't want it so it must've been rape (or is just batshit insane) and goes forward with charges.

Anyway, proper studies show that white-collar criminals are best at rationalizing their crimes.

You believe rape shouldn't be studied? What's the matter, are taboo topics hard for you to stomach? Ignorance is bliss I guess, and from what I've seen of your few posts here in P&N, you must one of the happiest people around.

 

[bhanson]

You assume sacrifice is feared. What happens when sacrifice is not only acceptable, but desired? If sacrifice is viewed as heroic, then not only are you happy for the person being sacrificed, "morality" may have you hoping to be the next sacrifice.

Morals are not necessarily logical in the sense that you intend. They're merely the prevailing "logic" of any given set of people at any given time, and they're prone to change.

You nailed it.

Sacrifice is not always bad and in my opinion I think we could incorporate it into our culture today and see good. This going to euthanasia and the question of how much is life worth?

Is it worth it for a family to go into $100,000 in debt to keep alive a nearly brain dead family member? Not even remotely, but people do it every day.

Think of how much it costs for the elderly to survive with around the clock care. Now, if these people were fruitful members of society and are able to cover their own costs then it is of no consequence. But the situation turns muddy when many of these older individuals are disabled, not self-aware, and have not a dime to their name. Is it really doing anyone good to keep them alive? Not really.

I am not necessarily advocating murder, but imagine if it was in our culture for most people to have an advanced directive to take care of this wasteful case. Less financial drain on the system and for nearly no cost. This sort of advanced directive could be seen as admirable.

 

[BoberFett]

2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.

2 + 2 does equal 5. Of course, I use a completely different quaternary system whose symbols just happen to look like the symbols that you lowly humans use in your decimal system. I wouldn't expect you to understand my math, it's far more advanced. As are my morals.

 

[Moonbeam]

You assume sacrifice is feared. What happens when sacrifice is not only acceptable, but desired? If sacrifice is viewed as heroic, then not only are you happy for the person being sacrificed, "morality" may have you hoping to be the next sacrifice.

Morals are not necessarily logical in the sense that you intend. They're merely the prevailing "logic" of any given set of people at any given time, and they're prone to change.

Please stop reading my posts and then putting them in your own words as if you thought them up you plagiarizer. 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

You nailed it.

Sacrifice is not always bad and in my opinion I think we could incorporate it into our culture today and see good. This going to euthanasia and the question of how much is life worth?

Is it worth it for a family to go into $100,000 in debt to keep alive a nearly brain dead family member? Not even remotely, but people do it every day.

Think of how much it costs for the elderly to survive with around the clock care. Now, if these people were fruitful members of society and are able to cover their own costs then it is of no consequence. But the situation turns muddy when many of these older individuals are disabled, not self-aware, and have not a dime to their name. Is it really doing anyone good to keep them alive? Not really.

I am not necessarily advocating murder, but imagine if it was in our culture for most people to have an advanced directive to take care of this wasteful case. Less financial drain on the system and for nearly no cost. This sort of advanced directive could be seen as admirable.

He didn't nail anything, you asshole. I did and he stole it. 😉

 

[Moonbeam]

2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.

Better nail this down before Bober steals it. 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

2 + 2 does equal 5. Of course, I use a completely different quaternary system whose symbols just happen to look like the symbols that you lowly humans use in your decimal system. I wouldn't expect you to understand my math, it's far more advanced. As are my morals.

It's so advanced because it's from the planet Klepton, I bet.

 

[bfdd]

I have pretty decent morals and no god. Stupidest "proof" of a god I've ever heard.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You believe rape shouldn't be studied? What's the matter, are taboo topics hard for you to stomach? Ignorance is bliss I guess, and from what I've seen of your few posts here in P&N, you must one of the happiest people around.

Wow. That is the most devoid-of-rational-connectivity, knee-jerk reply I have ever seen.

"BoberFett," eh? I may have to remember that, for it may be of some small amusement to lay your little mind bare one of these days. But only if comes out that you're consistently bizarre. If this instance is nothing but something along the lines of a senior moment... then, *yawn*, boooooring.

I'm not even going to correct you. I'll just let you flop about on the end of the line there to see whether you can climb your way back to a restart position or if your repertoire lacks such a basic tool.
And I'm telling you this and thus adding another layer of complexity to the equation (factoring in your response to being an experimental subject) just so the datum gives me enough work for it to be somewhat interesting.

Have fun being yourself, and don't have an aneurysm. 😉

 

[Mursilis]

I have pretty decent morals and no god. Stupidest "proof" of a god I've ever heard.

You and the point need to be introduced.

 

[bfdd]

You and the point need to be introduced.

I honestly have no idea what this thread is about, I didn't read it. I just felt like posting something random.

 

[Atreus21]

I have pretty decent morals and no god. Stupidest "proof" of a god I've ever heard.

I don't think anyone said it's proof of anything. It's just a challenge to atheists to identify the origin of their morality.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow. That is the most devoid-of-rational-connectivity, knee-jerk reply I have ever seen.

"BoberFett," eh? I may have to remember that, for it may be of some small amusement to lay your little mind bare one of these days. But only if comes out that you're consistently bizarre. If this instance is nothing but something along the lines of a senior moment... then, *yawn*, boooooring.

I'm not even going to correct you. I'll just let you flop about on the end of the line there to see whether you can climb your way back to a restart position or if your repertoire lacks such a basic tool.
And I'm telling you this and thus adding another layer of complexity to the equation (factoring in your response to being an experimental subject) just so the datum gives me enough work for it to be somewhat interesting.

Have fun being yourself, and don't have an aneurysm. 😉

Sadly, I think you take your own shtick seriously. Let me guess, you're a MENSA member and actually believe that you're above the rest of us riff-raff?

 

[totalnoob]

It's funny that you should use that against deity based morality, because if you don't believe that god exists, then it wasn't god who put that law into place, it was humans and their ever shifting sense of morality, meaning there is no such thing as objective morality, god or no god.

I'm not the one claiming there is an objective and unchanging morality. That would be the theists. The Deuteronomy pic is just one example of "divinely inspired" ethics that most Christians would find repugnant today..along with the repeated commandments from the Christian God to commit genocide and to enslave entire civilizations. Religious morality changes over time as the moral sentiment of those who practice it changes. It is clearly not the timeless and perfect work of a timeless and perfect God. Otherwise we could never hope to evolve beyond the barbarism displayed in "the good book". That was the point.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not the one claiming there is an objective and unchanging morality. That would be the theists. The Deuteronomy pic is just one example of "divinely inspired" ethics that most Christians would find repugnant today..along with the repeated commandments from the Christian God to commit genocide and to enslave entire civilizations. Religious morality changes over time as the moral sentiment of those who practice it changes. It is clearly not the timeless and perfect work of a timeless and perfect God. Otherwise we could never hope to evolve beyond the barbarism displayed in "the good book". That was the point.

Yup. I always get a kick out of it when the Atheist Experience points out to Christian callers how they(the Christians) are more Moral than their God. The God of the Bible has no problem with Slavery or Womens' Inequality. Christians have rejected those sentiments, for the most part, and now consider them Immoral.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Let me guess, you're a MENSA member and actually believe that you're above the rest of us riff-raff?

You really shouldn't worry about what I believe. You would undoubtedly hang it on some simple little framework so you'd have something to use as a baseline for responses, but that's not gonna be of any help to you. The number of attempts you make at understanding me is not going to exceed your number of failures, and the methods by which you reach your failures will reveal much about yourself. And, frankly, there's a lot of noise on that channel -- so much will come through that is just mundane. If I am interested in a particular facet of you I have much better methods of revealing it than just listening to you crash about in the dark.

Yes, it's self-centered, but as I cannot help you, that comes out on top.

And don't bother to post what you make of this. Like I said, there's a lot of noise on that channel. I've watched a lot of people spin their wheels over the years and it just isn't interesting anymore.