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.
lol ... 'rational assessment'! That differs doesn't it? For many it is a rational reaction to shoot an unarmed 17 year old walking home from the store because he looks suspicious. For others, it is not rational behavior.
"Rational assessment" only differs to irrational people. Rational reaction is an entirely differnt concept. I assume you're referencing the killing of Trayvon Martin. While there are many people who are attempting to rationalize that homicide, no rational person would consider this to be a rational act.
illusion atheist has no conscience bark for express scold. no rod justice. staff correcting and cannot do rescue and knows only parish.there is no guard. moral not possible.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
Two quick points:
1. One could strongly argue that the complicated moral fabric of today's society has been derived from years and years of religious teachings/ religious history/ religious war / etc.
2. Everyone keeps saying that Christians somehow are the only ones that seek morality from an external source (i.e. a Bible). However, this is not completely true. Most Christians draw comfort and seek guidance from the Bible, and that is very different from doing what the book says. In reality, all citizens retort to external sources for understanding what is right or wrong - after all what else is the Constitution/ Local laws if not a guide book?
Those are LAWS which reflect collective morality. They are not sources of morality.
Those are LAWS which reflect collective morality. They are not sources of morality.
Again, incorrect! There are MANY LAWS that do not reflect collective morality and are in fact deemed to be immoral or unpopular by a majority of the populace for a variable period of time.
Most people consider Stand your Ground Law to be immoral. Yet it is LAW.
Most people consider possession of semi-automatic weapons to be wrong/ unnecessary. Yet it is LAW.
And how are they not sources of morality?
You essentially know right from wrong based on the law. If the law tells you that smoking crack is illegal, you stay away from crack or risk getting arrested. The law tell you things like polygamy is bad/ illegal .... etc. You get my point? All law abiding citizens derive what is right or wrong from various sections of the law. If Morality was so inherent in us, we would not need such laws.
I have often heard atheists argue that theists: say Christians, pick and choose their morality from the Bible. But then again, don't atheists do the same? I am not sure how they decide what is moral or not.
Not all atheists are NOT pro-choice. Not all atheists are pro-gay-rights. So aren't they as a group also picking and choosing their morals? Yet they criticize the religious for doing the same thing.
An atheist will typically understand that morality evolves and changes with society. Moral codes are based partly on human nature and partly on what a particular community or society agrees is right or wrong.
"Treat others the way you want to be treated," for example, makes sense because doing so actually works out pretty well in the real world, and not doing so gets you into problems.
Me either, that's among the reasons I'm a non believer, I don't have to worry about violating any doctrines advanced by any organizations.
You wrote that you failed to see my point. As closely as I can tell you failed to understand my point and I suspect that failure has to do with an agenda you are advancing rather than anything which I actually wrote.
If you are unable to grasp the difference between selecting morals based on your view of the morality involved with no restrictions, and doing the same while belonging to an organization which claims the authority to dictate moral decisions to you, then we have nothing to discuss.
I have often heard atheists argue that theists: say Christians, pick and choose their morality from the Bible. But then again, don't atheists do the same? I am not sure how they decide what is moral or not.
Not all atheists are NOT pro-choice. Not all atheists are pro-gay-rights. So aren't they as a group also picking and choosing their morals? Yet they criticize the religious for doing the same thing.
Not quite. I would never criticize anyone for "choosing" their moral framework. We all do it. I firmly believe that morality is a human construct, and all humans, religious and atheist alike, construct their own moralities.
What I do criticize is the assumption or claim that one particular morality is divinely inspired, and thus is the only morality. I feel this way, regardless of the source be it religious writings or the proclamation of religious leaders.
The problem we have with a lot of believers (not just Christians, but round here they are the most vocal) is that they claim that their morality is the one true eternal morality that is right, always has been right, and always will be because it was given by a god. They then proceed to modify that morality in the saem way us unbelievers do, but pretend that it isn't happening. This is the hypocrisy.
Me either, that's among the reasons I'm a non believer, I don't have to worry about violating any doctrines advanced by any organizations.
You wrote that you failed to see my point. As closely as I can tell you failed to understand my point and I suspect that failure has to do with an agenda you are advancing rather than anything which I actually wrote.
If you are unable to grasp the difference between selecting morals based on your view of the morality involved with no restrictions, and doing the same while belonging to an organization which claims the authority to dictate moral decisions to you, then we have nothing to discuss.
I am not trying to advance any agenda ....
I have repeatedly said that the church is allowed to evolve and change it teachings on a variety of subjects. You and others keep insisting that it cannot!
The church dictates moral decisions to its followers no more than the LAW of the land dictates moral decisions (right and wrong) to its citizens. While the church does not enforce anything, the LAW of the land can put you in prison (or solitary confinement) for something as benign as possession of a few grams of plant (i.e. marijuana).
So clearly the LAW of the land is enforcing it morals on YOU. It is telling you what it deems to be RIGHT or WRONG. So by that same logic .... how and why do you withstand such immorality? Why don't you leave the state?
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.
