Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-23-2008, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 3,317,124 times
Reputation: 735

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant View Post
Sergeyn,
In your first response you stated First, I do believe in a sort of universal goodness or truth, even though I see it as a potential, a quality, rather than a Power or a Being. According to that universal goodness, in any given situation, there is the right thing to do and that "right" thing happens to be in the direction of deminishing suffering
THen in the next one you said, Well, I don't believe in any absolutes. I just don't think there's anything absolute about us or this world we live in.
If there is a right thing to do in any given situation, how is that different than an absolute? If you don't believe anything in this universe is absolute, what do you mean by 'universal truth'?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I may be able to throw something out. I think that morals are something that only exists where people exist. So would murder and theft still be immoral if no humans existed? One could always say that animals show (to some extent) morals, but I think we all see what can-o-worms that would open.

I tend to think that morals don't need to come from a higher power, and I think that the fact of them being pretty ambiguous leads me to think that morals are more or less man made (general/universal agreement of the society created).

For instance, theft, if let run rampant, would lead to no one working or being productive; humans would either slip into an animal like state, or regroup into a society where theft is a no-no. For me the social contract best describes the nature and origin of morals. Most religions just use these common "universal" ideals because they are a truth of sorts and the religion needs that as a foundation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2008, 12:12 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,139,375 times
Reputation: 55550
i think pretty much like everybody else. christians don't refer to the bible for everyday decisions. at the office they refer to the bottom line. at home they refer to the law of harmony at any cost and the high priestess of that law is mama. if they mess that up the folks at church won't talk much to them much. i dont think atheists live a much different life. how bout you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 05:01 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,348 posts, read 7,336,717 times
Reputation: 7276
I view secular laws a basis for all moral behavior. I back that up by rejecting any behavior or organization which I personally see as having a negative affect on life, the planet, or humanity in general. They are in my view lacking the basic moral structure and to support them would not be moral.
In the case of religion I see the major organization as lacking morals due to their history of atrocities and documented violations of the secular laws. My previous statement tells you how I view people who back those organizations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 07:13 AM
 
57 posts, read 87,774 times
Reputation: 18
Default In the beginning, we were ALL made in God's image.

The aetheist's philosophical question/doubts about the significance of "morality" is actually a very Godly one.

When a person's ideology is that there should be peaceful coexistence among humanity, they will have a peaceful and just spirit/demeanor (Godly spirit) and their personal understanding of right/wrong will be based on GOOD/EVIL (the tree eaten of in the Garden of Eden). Hebrews 5:14 states that the creator wants us to understand GOOD/EVIL (right/wrong is only man's code of "morality"). Because peaceful coexistence is the creator's desire for humanity, the knowledge of GOOD/EVIL takes spiritual precedence over right/wrong morals (peace and harmony are logical,...evil is illogical).

After accepting Jesus as the savior of all humanity, we become TEMPLES of God's spirit (we should worship in our own temples, NOT in buildings or with public prayer). Our ONLY spiritual teacher should be God's spirit Himself (NO pastors/scholars in buildings, etc.). Neither is the bible a spiritual authority (JESUS was given ALL authority in heaven and earth).

I've been Christian for 22 years. In my experience, aetheists have a peaceful and just Godly spirit/demeanor (and only need to accept the creator's son as savior).

Discrimination/condescension/resentment is in direct proportiion to our self-esteem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
520 posts, read 893,320 times
Reputation: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by more excellent way View Post
The aetheist's philosophical question/doubts about the significance of "morality" is actually a very Godly one.
It sounds like your stating that even God has doubts about morals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by more excellent way View Post
When a person's ideology is that there should be peaceful coexistence among humanity, they will have a peaceful and just spirit/demeanor (Godly spirit) and their personal understanding of right/wrong will be based on GOOD/EVIL (the tree eaten of in the Garden of Eden). Hebrews 5:14 states that the creator wants us to understand GOOD/EVIL (right/wrong is only man's code of "morality"). Because peaceful coexistence is the creator's desire for humanity, the knowledge of GOOD/EVIL takes spiritual precedence over right/wrong morals (peace and harmony are logical,...evil is illogical).
OK, so your basing morals off of knowledge of good and evil, right? If we understand good and eveil then we understand how to be moral human beings. If this is the point you are trying to drive i have a few questions for you.

1) what of Adam and Eve before they ate from the tree of knowledge? Were they incapable of having morals before they ate from the tree, and thus gained knowledge and understanding of good and evil?

2) Assuming that God wants us to be moral indivduals, if morality is based in the knowledge of good and evil, then it sounds like humanity was doomed to begin with. Once Adam and Eve gained their knowledge of good and evil, they were damned for going against God's will. But how could they have been moral indivduals with out that knowledge? From your agrument, they couldnt. And if God wants us to understand good and evil, why not just give Adam and Eve that knowledge in the first place instead of tempting them.

I will agree with you that with more knowledge and understanding people will behave and act better, become more moral. But as far as God wanting us to have this knowledge and understanding is completely contradictory within the instance of Adam and Eve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 12:19 PM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,017,832 times
Reputation: 1333
In order to survive and reproduce, we need to work together in society. This is one religion-free source of morals. The other is human rights. I am a firm believer that people have every right to do as they please, as long is it does not harm others. The secular government does an ok (not perfect) job of upholding this. It's sort of a variation of the golden rule.

I am not an atheist, but rather an agnostic. However, Christians can see me as atheist because I don't follow the bible. And yet, I feel tremendous compassion for my son, who is 7 months old. How can a godless heathen feel compassion? Because it is genetically and socially programmed in me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 09:54 PM
 
57 posts, read 87,774 times
Reputation: 18
I've noticed that most posts on the internet today are TANDEM posts, not STAND ALONE posts,...meaning that they don't simply contain the words of the writer, they also contain parts of another post. A "stand alone" post only contains the words/thoughts of the author of the post and has intelligible meaning of it's own. The author of a "tandem" post pursues their own agenda of endless and unproductive controversy by continuously OPPOSING (not 'replying', but OPPOSING) other people's posts. Sometimes this is done intentionally, more often it is done unintentionally/subconsciously. Objective truth cannot be DEBATED (it can be DISCUSSED, objective truth is non-negotiable).

Tandem posts prevent productive/meaningful disussion and proper and effective communication, but also prevent true understanding by the author.

However, I'll clarify what I believed (or attempted) to be self explanatory.

The issue is...
GOOD/Evil versus man's right/wrong morality code.

In God's world (the spirit world), there is no need/goal to be "moral", a person's action/deed is either good OR bad/evil, there is no 'in between' (as in ever changing ACCEPTABLE morality, 'naughty', 'sneaky', etc.). In the creator's world/realm (sense of existence), we do not navigate a CODE that judges the merit and demerit of our actions, things can only be either GOOD or EVIL/BAD.

This is what the REAL word of God is all about. The SWORD of a Godly spirit is the proper use of this knowledge (the knowledge of GOOD/EVIL). The SWORD separates all morality into 2 categories...GOOD and EVIL. There is no "in between" ("no variation or shadow", James 1:17). The "change" from what is acceptable (good) to what is unacceptable (evil) is clear and abrupt.

James 1:17
"...with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change".


Ephesians 6:17
"...and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God".

Jesus did not come to earth for the purpose of bringing "peace" of mind to everyone who simply wants to continue doing whatever they want, He came to produce a division in our minds between good and evil.

Luke 12:51
"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division".

"Right" is not an unspiritual concept (Jesus speaks of "righteousness"), but a Godly spirit will understand MORE than simple morality.

"Compassion" is also a Godly concept and sentiment, but that is only to be felt/shown for those who SUFFER unjustly. For those who are dear to us, we have PASSION (it is inaccurate to say we have COMpassion in expressing personal love). Love is an abiding passion. I loved my dad, but not feverishly with "jump/shout" worship or "pray" flattery theatrics and gestures.

God is practical, and VERY different than man has presented Him.

The spirit searches even...
"...the depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
520 posts, read 893,320 times
Reputation: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by more excellent way View Post
I've noticed that most posts on the internet today are TANDEM posts, not STAND ALONE posts,...meaning that they don't simply contain the words of the writer, they also contain parts of another post. A "stand alone" post only contains the words/thoughts of the author of the post and has intelligible meaning of it's own. The author of a "tandem" post pursues their own agenda of endless and unproductive controversy by continuously OPPOSING (not 'replying', but OPPOSING) other people's posts. Sometimes this is done intentionally, more often it is done unintentionally/subconsciously. Objective truth cannot be DEBATED (it can be DISCUSSED, objective truth is non-negotiable).

Tandem posts prevent productive/meaningful disussion and proper and effective communication, but also prevent true understanding by the author.
I'll agree with you that most of the posts contained within this forum are tandem posts, as no doubt this one is as well. Though, i am going disagree with you're statement that their cannot be effective conversation.

By using tandem posts, or quoting someone elses words, the conversation is propelled and can continue on. By using tandem posts one is able to respond to what another individual has said, and to also be clear of the other post they are referring to. Yes i will agree that often one individuals post may oppose another's, but this forum was specifically created with debate and intellectual argument in mind. Debate and argument cannot exist without opposing views.

You're comment on stand alone posts i find to be very interesting. Tell me, is it possible for two people to carry on a conversation when one, or both, ignore the words/thoughts that the other has stated?

I quoted you're earlier post because i wanted to better understand your views. I also quoted your post to see your argumentative capabilities because, as ive stated before, this forum is about debate and argument.

With your stand alone post you did clarify your views, but also completely ignored my questions. Which was an attempt to continue the conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 04:42 AM
 
57 posts, read 87,774 times
Reputation: 18
On the cross, Jesus purified our flesh (Hebrews 9:14). Having a peaceful and just Godly spirit means that our conscience will be purified (same verse).

Since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good/evil before they ate, their conscience was pure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 05:05 AM
 
57 posts, read 87,774 times
Reputation: 18
I had written a longer post before on what I was saying about the difference between right/wrong and good/evil, but lost it in posting because I timed out.

I base my personal sense of right/wrong on doing what is right and just in each different situation, I do not base my sense of right/wrong on an arbitrary CODE. I do not try to fulfill codes, I avoid causing EVIL/chaos/unrest (the devil can't cause evil, we cause evil and use him as the scapegoat).

Right/wrong and good/evil are not the same, one is simply a CODE that is adjusted to accomadate war, etc., and the other (good/evil) simply will not allow war/chaos/injustice.

Last edited by more excellent way; 10-28-2008 at 05:08 AM.. Reason: explanation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top