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.
Well they didn't need anybody or any organization to tell them to stop polluting, nature very very graciously showed man just how dumb and insulting it was.... and could have sent something atmospheric or solar related which would wipe him out for the insult . So my story had to do with a base position which in this polluting scheme describes the secular moralist and what the end product is, and what he deserves. He can't be trusted and will empty whatever vault in view, then if the cops come...oh sorry I will put it back...One day the cops will come with something a little more special I would think. Being away from reason gets exactly what it deserves. Anything not appreciated is swiftly taken away, competition is what its all about. The germs want there kick at the cat as well and so far it pretty much looks like its just about their turn.
I still don't see any evidence that, since the dawn of the industrial age, theists (or if you prefer, Christians) polluted less than agnostics or unbelievers or nominal believers (or, say, Native Americans). I think there's considerable evidence that theists pollute as much or more than anyone else, in fact. To claim that believing in god makes you easier on the environment has no basis that I can see. Can you demonstrate such a basis, either by showing an inherent systemic respect for the environment, in, say, Christianity -- or by showing that most of the ecology movement is motivated by Christian thought?
I still don't see any evidence that, since the dawn of the industrial age, theists (or if you prefer, Christians) polluted less than agnostics or unbelievers or nominal believers (or, say, Native Americans). I think there's considerable evidence that theists pollute as much or more than anyone else, in fact. To claim that believing in god makes you easier on the environment has no basis that I can see. Can you demonstrate such a basis, either by showing an inherent systemic respect for the environment, in, say, Christianity -- or by showing that most of the ecology movement is motivated by Christian thought?
Not surprised with the theists and polluting. The point of the story was in the aftermath of the outcome. The theist in polluting earth knows full well in conscience it is un-natural and an insult to what is believed. The culture moralist simply acts on impulsive reaction, oh that will not due we better stop. So the end product in principal is the theist would be subject in responsibility to a focus representing the natural given world, and its due respect.
This experience of failure would then multiply in effect for future consideration and influence, how ? because of a comprehensible measure in the insult itself. A receiver or God figure becomes insulted by lack of appreciation in what is given, -adding an emphasis in boundaries by the understood relationship between the theist and the world. So reconciliation is in order and hopefully would be a learning experience for the future..in principal for the theist. All well and good but what we know is that so called prof cannot explain these things discussed because, they are simply not up to snuff and don't know their stuff, plain and simple most things are and should be all fired.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-14-2013 at 12:05 PM..
Not surprised with the theists and polluting. The point of the story was in the aftermath of the outcome. The theist in polluting earth knows full well in conscience it is un-natural and an insult to what is believed. The culture moralist simply acts on impulsive reaction, oh that will not do, we better stop. So the end product in principal is the theist would be subject in responsibility to a focus representing the natural given world, and its due respect.
This experience of failure would then multiply in effect for future consideration and influence, how ? because of a comprehensible measure in the insult itself. A receiver or God figure becomes insulted by lack of appreciation in what is given, -adding an emphasis in boundaries by the understood relationship between the theist and the world. So reconciliation is in order and hopefully would be a learning experience for the future..in principal for the theist.
So you are not actually asserting that any form of theism evidences a given, externally provided objective morality in the specific example of environmental responsibility that would actually cause anyone to treat the environment any differently. If I understand you correctly you are saying that a theist would just feel guiltier about raping the environment, or something to that effect. So their reasons for being more environmentally responsible are somehow nobler.
I fail to see how this distinction matters.
Look ... one of two things are true about morality as a general concept. Either it is an emergent property of culture and society or it is bestowed by god. If the former, then theists are just mis-identifying the source of morality and giving god credit for something that is, at best, a natural consequence of god's creation and at worst, has nothing to do with any god. If the latter, then atheists are just mis-identifying the source of morality and giving society credit for something that really comes from god.
Either way, the party who is "wrong" is using the same morality as the party that is "right" and then making wrong attributions about it. No one can seriously claim that unbelievers are bereft of morality or a "moral compass"; after all, we do not become wanton hedonists when we cease to believe in god. And no one can seriously claim that believers have a superior morality because they murder, pillage, participate in war, divorce, etc at about the same rates as anyone else. Atheism has its Stalins and theists have their Inquisitions and Jonestowns and Salem Witch Trials and Boston Marathon Bombers.
It seems to me we should just look at morality dispassionately and not try to lay exclusive claim to it because of our (a)theist affiliations. Not until someone can demonstrably show better outcomes attributable to a particular belief system anyway. At the end of the day we are all humans and cannot escape our humanity -- the good, bad and ugly of it all. What is "moral" is what promotes the general welfare and sustainability of civilization, until someone comes up with real bragging rights for a better way of life that is actually demonstrable.
Guilt is a word that has a nasty ring to it because of its use in abusive ways for selfish and disordered gain. There would be zero given a theist in advantage for objective moral finding, unless there is an active and known relationship connecting actions and attitudes with the belief.
Reason being the belief would understand God to be interested in the sanctification of being, which includes these behav idea's and so on. So its not guilt as its mentioned, its the additional participation and, the nature of the participation in being god. So a more profound reality. Not an eye in the sky, a presence welcome by the theist in the life. I think this touches on a pretty important point yet to be discovered in this so far . ..will read balance of reply in a sec. plus theres another way in explaining philosophically which is very sound but takes a bit more time.
Morality is an emergent extension of reason. Man is born with an ability not earned or learned but given which without, he could not even understand the finite world. It is an endowment and allows...
man to understand ...what morality is. If man could not understand what morality is, he could not talk about it. So without even a society to discuss...man would in the jungle formulate and govern himself alongside the critters with what...
this common ground language he has in reason, with not only himself and his setting in the world, but also in the world of his mind.
( finite-infinite-survival...being all that.
So then we now are away from instinct and know and can waver, but in all appreciation is the find in reason and was prob the first conscious thought in knowing, and found in abandonment of fear, the guard. Morality, reason, appreciation -same same same. Where do people think the art came from, ego's moderated out of hamburgers- oh I don't think so.. Angelo was heard to say he believed God himself hand picked him very carefully for the job.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-14-2013 at 01:49 PM..
Glad to see you admitting it. So what's your justification for why you take biblical verses out of context, make up the context of verses, or ignore the original context of biblical verses to suit yourself?
Can you give me an example of me taking something out of context? I, of course, don't think I'm doing that. I'd love to an example.
If Atheism were inadequate to address issues of morality, then Atheists would behave worse than Theists. I have not observed that.
There are many examples of devout Theists committing terrible crimes like the recent bombings in Boston.
All in all, I see us Atheists behaving just as well as the Theists, so we must have an adequate sense of morality.
It seems that we are essentially talking past one another. I'm keying in on the obvious dilemma posed by moral relativism and you seem focused on behavioral patterns.
I agree that there is often no visible or apparent difference between certain less-than-desirable behaviors in which both theists and atheists have engaged. My point is that it's basically fruitless to discuss the morally reprehensible behavior of theists until we've determined whether or not there can logically be any such thing as morally reprehensible behavior in the first place. Under the atheist model, there can really be no such thing. This pretty much blows your OP out of the water.
Speaking as a Christian, life isn't about winning the morality contest. The Bible speaks clearly to man's nature being naturally set against God and God's commandments. In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any human to follow God's law. God can and will only accept PERFECT righteousness - that's why we NEED Jesus.
I am a retired Civil Servant who has never caused any trouble, so it is obvious I have lived my life very differently than those three people. I would guess their moral compass was very different from mine.
Why was theirs different? Genetics, upbringing, and life experiences.
No, it was just different than mine. All three of them had what it takes to inspire others, so their ideas must have appealed to many people.
Really? Seriously? This is astonishing!
Millions of men, women and children MURDERED between the three - and THAT'S your assessment?! Really?!
I'm keying in on the obvious dilemma posed by moral relativism and you seem focused on behavioral patterns.
It seems to me you're focused on an imagined dilemma that is completely obviated by the total lack of a practical problem that one would expect to arise from the dilemma if it actually existed. As you admit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I agree that there is often no visible or apparent difference between certain less-than-desirable behaviors in which both theists and atheists have engaged.
Now as to the idea that it's "fruitless" to discuss morally reprehensible behavior until one can define it. Defining it is no problem at all. That which is reprehensible is that which is punishable. That which is punishable is that behavior which is subject to sanction - legal sanction, social sanction, familial sanction, or whatever (it is not for instance illegal to fart at dinner but your friends and relatives will make your life pretty miserable if you do, by denying you their company ;-)
These sanctions exist for all persons, regardless of their (a)religious persuasion. There is some variation from family to family, society to society, nation to nation, but there are far more similarities than differences.
You are obsessed, apparently, with the idea that such sanctions have no legitimacy if they come merely from human governments, societies, and families, yet that is the only place they have ever come from. Despite their "illegitimacy", they have always done their job, which is to preserve civil society as best as can be done in the face of human frailty. In fact, they work better than ancient religious edicts because they can adapt with the times. Before you clutch your hand to your breast over this, that's a good thing. We are more enlightened in our attitude today towards things like slavery and indentured servitude and debtor's prisons and mental health care and racism, so our laws and sanctions and our concept of what is morally reprehensible have changed accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Speaking as a Christian, life isn't about winning the morality contest.
Yet if theist morality is in any meaningful practical sense a better morality, it ought to be reflected in theist behavior relative to atheist behavior. You have already conceded that this is not so. I am not making this into a "contest", much less an unfair one. I'm simply making a comparison in behavior and observing that your morality does not make a difference for you and I submit that it's because it's the same morality everyone else has with different words used to describe it and a different source alleged for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The Bible speaks clearly to man's nature being naturally set against God and God's commandments. In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any human to follow God's law. God can and will only accept PERFECT righteousness - that's why we NEED Jesus.
That is a fair statement of what the Bible says about man's nature and god's standards and the purpose of a savior. But that is a doctrinal statement, not a statement proving a divine origin for morality.
Man is born with a [bestowed] ability without which, he could not even understand the finite world. It is an endowment and allows man to understand what morality is.
Please substantiate this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
If man could not understand what morality is, he could not talk about it.
If man could not understand what salad dressing is, he could not talk about it either. What is your point? I guess it's this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
So without even a society to discuss...man would in the jungle formulate and govern himself alongside the critters with what (etc.)
I take it that what you are going on about is that even if you or I were the only human on earth (no human society) we would have an innate moral code. Please substantiate this claim. Also explain why a moral code would even be required if there is no one to defraud, harm or lie to.
My suggestion would be that you would have ideas of "good" and "bad" based on what causes you pain, hunger, weariness, etc. Once there was another person in your environment you would begin to interact and if you were in close enough quarters you would be compelled to cooperate and in order to cooperate you would develop rules and ways to enforce those rules. Morals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
Morality, reason, appreciation -same same same. Where do people think the art came from, ego's moderated out of hamburgers- oh I don't think so.. Angelo was heard to say he believed God himself hand picked him very carefully for the job.
Reasoning can be about anything and can be faulty. You can scarcely equate it to a particular application of reason like morality. Where appreciation comes into it I'm not sure. Maybe you mean appreciation towards god and are implying that suggesting morality does not emanate from god is ingratitude. I can't really be sure though so I won't try to address that. What I do think it's somewhat clear you're trying to say is that art proves god, morality proves god, and such wonderful things can't arise from any other source. This is simply repeating assertions you've made in other forms without substantiation.
Morality is entirely explicable apart from god and so is art and aesthetics. Nor does explaining them on their own merits reduce their value in any way. Where is god's "value added"?
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.
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.
