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.
Believers think their morality comes from their God, non believers think morality lies within. The only difference is who you feel you answer to for immoral acts. Since both of these lie within your own mind, your choice of belief or lack of then everyone is accountable for their own actions in the end. This is why not only non believers but believers spend time in jail, get divorced, have guilt, yadda, yadda, and yadda.
Morals are only the first line of defense, and it's a weak one at that. Real consequences hold more weight for both. IMO, of course.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Believers think their morality comes from their God, non believers think morality lies within. The only difference is who you feel you answer to for immoral acts. Since both of these lie within your own mind, your choice of belief or lack of then everyone is accountable for their own actions in the end. This is why not only non believers but believers spend time in jail, get divorced, have guilt, yadda, yadda, and yadda.
Morals are only the first line of defense, and it's a weak one at that. Real consequences hold more weight for both. IMO, of course.
Would it not be so much better if everyone lived by the construct of:
If it feels good do it.
If it harms you, or someone else, don't.
The world would be a better place, and it didn't matter if religion was part of the equation or not.
Honestly, Doc? I'm not a mystic. I don't get half of what you say. I'm sorry. You just don't make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure it's me, though.
No, not really. Mystic can be a bit mystic. He here has pointed out that the suggestion that various moral codes handed out to various communities is entirely commensurate with the humanist idea that different groups develop different moral codes, but often remarkably similar.
You can of course say - rather like the answer to 'which God?' - that it is all the same code, like the 'same God'. Just that Christianity has got it more right than all the others. From the horse's mouth (odd expression (1) in the OT, completely revamped by Jesus.
(1) I suspect it is a racing term for a sure fire tip that couldn't me more sure if the horse had whispered it.
This unequivocally reveals that you do NOT have the remotest idea what an absolute and objective morality MEANS, Vizio. Abandon whatever you THINK you were trying to achieve in this thread because you just invalidated your position by engaging in the very thing you have been accusing everyone else of doing . . . positing a subjective and NEITHER an absolute NOR an objective morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Honestly, Doc? I'm not a mystic. I don't get half of what you say. I'm sorry. You just don't make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure it's me, though.
It means your bloviating in this thread has been a waste of everyone's time . . . because you have no absolute or objective morality to judge ANYTHING by.
If, after all this time, you can't realize that I'm not arguing for my interpretation of a set of commands...I don't know what else I can say.
No, clearly you do not. Theistic morality is just human morality retrospectively rubber stamped by an imaginary authority on the matter. That is all the evidence, data, arguments and reasoning at this time shows to be true.
You might think a god offers us an objective morality, but you have not in 1000s of posts evidenced either claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I've adequately demonstrated that the OP has a pointless argument. Without being able to actually say what is moral and what isn't, the point of this thread is moot.
Then do not let the door hit you on the way out. No one is compelling you, to my knowledge, to post drivel here and blanket dismiss and derail and thread you have no interest in. If the argument of the thread is pointless TO YOU then move on. The rest of us will continue on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Clearly, since there is no form of morality among mankind that is objective and absolute, we must look to a higher source. Do you agree?
No. Because you are merely asserting that it has to be objective and absolute. That assumption / assertion is one I do not share. You are merely assuming it to make an argument.
Further until you can present reason to think there is a "higher source" at all, there is no reason I can see to "look to it".
So you are wrong twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So motion pictures have been around since the Roman era? An ancient artwork of erotica hardly compares to the wide variety of sexual perversions that a child can view online nowadays.
You are moving the goal posts now. Your claim was that pornography did not exist in those times. It did. So you are wrong. Admit it, for once.
Now you move the goal posts to suggest that certain TYPES of pornography were not available.
You are moving the goal posts now. Your claim was that pornography did not exist in those times. It did. So you are wrong. Admit it, for once.
Now you move the goal posts to suggest that certain TYPES of pornography were not available.
I didn't think I would have to resort to being that specific. I'm talking about pornography in the modern day. It can cause addiction and erode a person's ability to express intimacy in a marriage. No wonder our divorce rates are high. Will you at least agree that the breakup of the modern family is a bad thing? At least in past generations, families stayed together and supported each other.
Would it not be so much better if everyone lived by the construct of:
If it feels good do it.
If it harms you, or someone else, don't.
The world would be a better place, and it didn't matter if religion was part of the equation or not.
And you still won't tell me how your simple constructs works in areas where either way causes some level of harm. How would this work with something like assisted suicide?
I didn't think I would have to resort to being that specific.
This is an internet forum. We only have your words to go on. If you say "X did not exist in time period Y" and X did exist in time period Y, we are going to call you on the error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm talking about pornography in the modern day.
No. You were not. You very clearly said "Pornography didn't exist in past generations". Yet it did. So you were wrong. Admit if for once in your posting career here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It can cause addiction and erode a person's ability to express intimacy in a marriage.
It can. But so can computer games. Fast food. Gambling. Television soaps and box sets. Alcohol. Ingress. Internet Debate Forums. And so much more. We are a species prone to addiction. Do not single Pornography out as if it is any different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No wonder our divorce rates are high.
Non sequitur error from you here. Just because something CAN be addictive (which it can) does not follow it is. Nor does it follow that it is the cause of divorce. You will find, if you bothered to investigate any of the studies on this matter, that things like porn and alcohol are just as often not the cause of marital break down.... but a symptom of it. That is to say people often do not turn to porn and alcohol and such things and cause their marriage to break down..... so much as their marriage is breaking down.... and they turn to porn and alcohol as a crutch.
Many people, the majority in fact, use porn without addiction, with no harm to their marriage, and many even use it complementary to their marriage such as viewing it together with their partner(s).
Not the first time you have trotted out "Correlation-Causation" errors as if they were fact however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Will you at least agree that the breakup of the modern family is a bad thing?
No I would not. For example I have a partner and two kids. We are not married nor do we have any intention to be.
There is another poster on here who is currently not posting due to having just had a second child with his partners. He also has two kids now therefore. He also has two female partners. The kids have a biological pair of parents and one "extra" mother therefore. The latter "mother" is intending, sometime in the next couple of years to four years.... to have two kids too. They are abundantly happy as a family and doing really well.
Is this a "breakup" of your traditional family? Yes both cases appear to be. Do I see anything bad in this at all? No I do not.
Through adoption, gay relationships and gay parenting, out of the norm relationships like the one above, and much more it is quite clear that your "traditional" values do not fit the requirements of a modern world at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
At least in past generations, families stayed together and supported each other.
Not sure what this has to do with anything I have written or replied to. All I did was call you on the error of your historical claims about porn. And now you are off on some barely connected tangent about people sticking by each other in mutual support. One thing we CAN agree on is people sticking with each other and offering mutual support is a GOOD thing. If you were trying to find common ground between us.... that certainly is a good place to begin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And you still won't tell me how your simple constructs works in areas where either way causes some level of harm. How would this work with something like assisted suicide?
That is the whole point of morality. It is not some hard fast list of objective rules. It is a continuum where some moral decisions are clear cut and others are grey areas that need the power of human discourse.
Assisted suicide is a great example. "Feel good and do not do harm" was the philosophy of the user you were replying to but clearly this needs to be extended. Assisted Suicide is not going to make the subject "Feel good". They will be dead. They will feel nothing.
But if they are in excruciating pain, pain with no chance of recovery, and wish their life to come to an end then my moral system... whatever about yours..... would still class this under the "Feel good" caveat and not the "Do no harm" one and I would wish to grant them the right to make that decision.
Your objective set in stone morality simply does not help, and there is no evidence for one any way, let alone a moral law giver. Morality is not only subjective.... it is CONTEXTUAL.... and does not afford us the convenience of being able to write down hard fast rules to suit every situation.
Or in short: A good moral system is a set of guidelines aiding one in making moral decisions. Not an algorithm for making those decisions for us. And that is _hard_ so it is no wonder you and your theist cohort gravitate towards a system that purports to be the latter.
And you still won't tell me how your simple constructs works in areas where either way causes some level of harm. How would this work with something like assisted suicide?
How would your God-given moral construct be any different?
Let's say that I'm in agonizing pain. I will be bed-ridden for the rest of my life, and the only escape from the pain is to be so drugged that I'm unconscious or vegetative. What's worse, let's say I'm only 20 or 30. There is no cure and the condition isn't fatal - I'll just be miserable, but the end will not come swiftly. I might have to live another 50 or 60 years like this ... and sooner or later, the pain drugs will stop having any effect.
If I want to die ... which I certainly would in a case like that ... being forced to remain alive because your God doesn't like suicide isn't a comfort. It will not make getting through each and every day any easier. No moral construct is perfect in the case of euthanasia. Some people will be hurt by it, others will not be. No matter whether you stay alive or die, someone is going to hurt and be hurt - both mentally and physically. Because, I'm here to tell you from personal experience, the mental trauma of being in near-constant pain is almost as bad as the pain itself.
Obviously I'm all for allowing euthanasia - not for things like, "Oh woe is me, my girlfriend broke up with me" or "I'm a failure for getting this A- on my trig test" ... no, I'm all for it in cases like the one I described initially in this post.
You, I'm sure, are probably against it because your religion tells you to be against it. I'm not even convinced that your opposition to euthanasia would go any deeper than that - "understanding is not required, only obedience." (I'll rep whomever identifies where that quote comes from, even though I'm sure people will google it).
If I get my way, then those who care about me will mourn; those that are religious will have their morality tweaked in the nose. However some of the mourners will know deep down it was for the best. In 6 months, perhaps a year, the hurt will have faded and life for the living will continue.
If I do not get my way, then I get to look forward to half a century of horrific pain, living in a world that has shrunk down to the size of my bed. In this scenario, I just cannot understand how anyone who might see me in pain, writhing around, kicking the bedding, screaming, could ever look me in the eye and justify that kind of torture ... mostly out of selfishness of either being unable to let me go or because of people foisting their religious beliefs on my ability to make my own choices.
The point here is that no matter what, your construct, my construct, Nozz's construct ... it is imperfect. Some situations, there is no win. Only the least damaging loss. Keep that in mind the next time you hear, "This is the Kobyashi Maru, 19 periods out of Altair Six. We have struck a gravitic mine and have lost all power ... (*crackle*)(*static*) ... have sustained many casualties. Hull penetrated, life support systems failing. Can you assist us, Enterprise? Can you ...."
(And just for the record, no, I'm not planning on euthanizing myself any time soon ... this was just a hypothetical, albeit not too far off the mark)
Last edited by Shirina; 09-11-2014 at 08:15 AM..
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.
