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.
That is... if one could show such a basis exists. So far it appears the existence of an objective basis for morality is entirely imaginary, and is little more than wishful thinking on the part of those who espouse it.
Given your consistent inability to show such an entity is actually real, this statement also appears to be a fantasy. There appears to be no such entity, there appears to be literally no evidence or argument for such an entity, and there appears to be no objective "purpose" to our existence either. I have seen nothing on these pages, much less from you, to suggest any of these things are real.
The point I am making is that we do not need a purpose, or an objective morality, in order to establish a moral system that works for us.
What you are demonstrating is the first steps of falling into a series of circular arguments... a series that many, if not most, of the theists I have met fall into. They ASSUME there is a purpose to our existence and they ASSUME there is an objective morality, and then they use each to prove the other. If you need assumptions to prove your assumptions, you're in a circular argument. Similarly they ASSUME there is an entity which gives us a purpose. Then then ASSUME there is a purpose. The purpose proves the purpose giver... the purpose giver proves the purpose... circle again.
Were you able to establish there is a purpose to our existence without assuming anything else... or assume there is a god entity which is giving us said purpose.... then we could talk. Until then circular arguments are of little use to me.
And, after congratulating Mystic on his noting that a law - giving god is capricious and not an intrinsically sound basis for morality, you also make an excellent post in pointing up that a god establishing our existence underpinning our morality is purely theoretical.
That said, if we replace 'god' by 'evolution' then we are all on the same page (except that Mystic seems to espouse the Intelligent Nature view of evolution). We are still left with the situation that morality is based on what's good for us rather than what's the agenda of an invisible alien being.
As I have said before, we are not obliged to stick with the hand evolution dealt us. We can and should do better than primate self - interest and competition for mates, food and lebensraum. If our morality is flexible rather than fixed by old codes either in lawbooks or in books of myth, then we are able to do so.
It only remains to show that the so - called moral compass and god - given morality is far less reliable than those who espouse them would like to suppose.
It just amazes me how many people actually believe this.
We get our morals from SOCIETY!
I don't agree with this statement completely. I believe the first opportunity to get our morals is from our parents. If our parents did not teach morals, then we may try to get them from society, which can be a good or bad thing.
What morality does religion have? Yahweh was a homicidal manic who murdered children. That's not who I'm going to show my daughter as a role model of morality.
Christian Morality: Hoping for the end of the world so billions of people suffer and perish in varying atrocities so they can be sentenced to eternity to suffer in a terrorist hellhole all for having the audacity to think for themselves and questioning a 2000 year old book full of contradictions and dubious claims.
What morality does religion have? Yahweh was a homicidal manic who murdered children. That's not who I'm going to show my daughter as a role model of morality.
Christian Morality: Hoping for the end of the world so billions of people suffer and perish in varying atrocities so they can be sentenced to eternity to suffer in a terrorist hellhole all for having the audacity to think for themselves and questioning a 2000 year old book full of contradictions and dubious claims.
Yeah, screw that.
My opinion is along the same lines about Christianity as some have interpreted it. Followers seem to focus on sins (past behavior) and have two solutions for bad behavior:
1. Punishment (very different from discipline)
2. Forgiveness (just say your sorry and forget about it-sounds like permissiveness, or turn the other cheek-sounds like victimization)
Morality is taught and passed on from generation to generation one way, expect and allow people to do what is right. Most naturally want to do this.
Yeah, cuz we all know how chock-filled with morals the Old Testament is, with all that genocide, rape, murder, incest, infanticide, etc. I mean, really: has there ever been a character in all of fiction that was more jealous, petty, murderous, trivial, tyrannical, and cruel than Yahweh was?
Nobody come to mind.
Actually got into a heated discussion with a friend of mine about this.
If it wasn't for religion we would have no morals.
It just amazes me how many people actually believe this.
We get our morals from SOCIETY! Not GOD or BUDDHA or any other religion.
And this was the point I got to make after he finally let me get a word in.
At the dawn of man we were nomads. Foraging for food.
Then man realized: "Hey... if we stay in one place and work together, we can have more resources! Let's hunt. let's gather!"
"And hey! Since the more able bodies we have, the more resources we will be able to accumulate, let's NOT kill each other! And hey! Since we are all working together here... how about if we DON'T STEAL FROM EACH OTHER! We will work towards the common good!"
and then they said "Hey... what is that loud booming from the sky that seems to drop water from above? It must be a god!"
Society created morals. Man created religion.
Just had to post that somewhere. Thanks for "listening."
If Man got his morals from society, then the German era of the 1930-1940's led by Hitler was justified in slaughtering 6 million Jews and many thousands of Christians . If Man got his morals from society, then the last centuries ATHEIST Tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Musselini were correct in murdering over 100,000,000 people collectively. If morals are relative to a society or to a situation, then its just Ones opinion since nothing is absolute for all people everywhere ... which makes virtually everything permissable . In fact, it is this atheistic construct that has contributed to all of our societal ills in America from the many forms of sexual hedonism, to walk in abortion , to blatant useage of profanity in public settings , et al . Its the personal internalized philosophy of : ' No one is going to tell me how to live my life' (most of all The Creator of the entire Universe so we'll just grasp at excuses why he shouldnt exist for justification of how we want to live AKA: Willful deciet) .
The interesting thing about the atheistic construct of 'moral relativism' is that the practicing atheist wants the freedom that moral relativism brings him/her...BUT, they expect and demand that others treat them in accordance to absolute moral standards of honesty, fairness, equity, respect, and dignity ALL the time , in every situation, from everyone . (Slightly hypocritical id say) .
If Man got his morals from society, then the German era of the 1930-1940's led by Hitler was justified in slaughtering 6 million Jews and many thousands of Christians .
Hitler in a 1922 speech and published in his book My New Order:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitler
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
Secondly, it was NOT okay per society's morals, because society did put an end to them. Per religious morals, many tyrants would be okay, because religious texts are filled with "righteous" leaders wiping out entires cities, nations, and races because they were "right/moral" and the others were "wrong/immoral".
If Man got his morals from society, then the German era of the 1930-1940's led by Hitler was justified in slaughtering 6 million Jews and many thousands of Christians . If Man got his morals from society, then the last centuries ATHEIST Tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Musselini were correct in murdering over 100,000,000 people collectively. If morals are relative to a society or to a situation, then its just Ones opinion since nothing is absolute for all people everywhere ... which makes virtually everything permissable . In fact, it is this atheistic construct that has contributed to all of our societal ills in America from the many forms of sexual hedonism, to walk in abortion , to blatant useage of profanity in public settings , et al . Its the personal internalized philosophy of : ' No one is going to tell me how to live my life' (most of all The Creator of the entire Universe so we'll just grasp at excuses why he shouldnt exist for justification of how we want to live AKA: Willful deciet) .
The interesting thing about the atheistic construct of 'moral relativism' is that the practicing atheist wants the freedom that moral relativism brings him/her...BUT, they expect and demand that others treat them in accordance to absolute moral standards of honesty, fairness, equity, respect, and dignity ALL the time , in every situation, from everyone . (Slightly hypocritical id say) .
You think this this better?
"When the churches literally ruled society, the human drama encompassed: (a) slavery; (b) the cruel subjection of women;(c)the most savage forms of legal punishment; (d) the absurd belief that kings ruled by divine right; (e) the daily imposition of physical abuse; (f) cold heartlessness for the sufferings of the poor; as well as (g) assorted pogroms ('ethnic cleansing' wars) between rival religions, capital punishment for literally hundreds of offenses, and countless other daily imposed moral outrages. . . . It was the free-thinking, challenging work by people of conscience, who almost invariably had to defy the religious and political status quo of their times, that brought us out of such darkness."
Steve Allen
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.
