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.
No one is suggesting that we enact the Mosaic Law as our morality system. To suggest that is simply dishonest. But we are asking how one defines morality without God? What is your system? And why is it the correct one?
This is not the first time this question has been asked in these threads or to me directly, but again the answer never seems to be heard...
Of course I can't speak for anyone else but me. However, simply note the common definition in the dictionary:
mo·ral·i·ty
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Do note none of the above requires any religion or God or spiritual guidance. Not rocket science after all, to tell the difference between right and wrong (unless something is wrong with you). Over the course of my life, by way of personal experience, education and/or learning the difference between "good and bad behavior," I simply came to know my life and those of others are better off if I attempt to do good rather than bad. Keeps me out of jail too...
I thought it best, good, for example, to teach my kids the same lesson, about how to be good rather than bad, without the need to have some priest, religion or "holy" book confuse them about what is very easy to recognize and decide upon. Though of course, to be good as we can be is not always an easy thing for any of us...
That would be disregarding history. There are lessons to be learned and without a forbearance, we just throw away what we don't like or understand.
Even a physicist must know addition and subtraction. It is also true to say all religions, arts and science are branches from the same tree. History is the recorded accumulations of experiences of all three humanities . It's what we're built upon.
If you want to learn the negativity that is present in so much of the OT, go for it.
If you personally connect to people who lived 3,000 years ago, go for it.
But if your head is in living as they did back then...then do it for real. Don't just give it lip service.
History, science and the Bible has a ship load of crap. Some of it is fertilizer, you know, that crap that makes somethings healthier, better, more robust. Quite often you have to pick out the useless crap from the good crap. That's what a sower does.
What I've also explained more than a few times, again in another thread, what we're all called upon to do when participating in this forum!
Easy I think to recognize we all deal with ship loads of crap, but it's deciding what is crap and what is not that either retards our progress as humans or allows us to advance. How to go about doing so, as I've explained also many times before by way of these ten truths...
We would be much better off without religion. It’s just a big business that allows these evangelists to take advantage of the weak and poor. Allowing these poor souls to believe they can buy their ticket to heaven or buy their freedom from cancer.
You really are confused and nearly impossible to follow. So... never mind
What is so hard to follow? (Though it is hard to follow deleted comments).
Your comment here is what I call a "drive by" post that does nothing but lodge an insult without even any effort to justify or clarify what you want to otherwise explain. And to cap off with "never mind" is really rich. Especially after all the effort to "compare notes" with you about your beliefs. Easy enough simply not to comment instead. Don't you think?
Then again, I've posted many a comment about why such a discussion is futile anyway, so I suppose maybe you just further prove the truth about this. We can't do much about the dilemma, but helps to understand it I think...
The fact that people tend to have roughly the same idea of morality is that God has written it on their hearts.
Or we all have an internal, evolved sense of morality. Except tests done across different cultures have shown this is true for only 90% of people. Which makes the question, why would a god make psychopaths and sociopaths?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
But when a society rejects that morality and goes their own way, without a definition for it, and without an authority to define it, then what?
We get a better morality that eventually treats others as equal.
The fact that people tend to have roughly the same idea of morality is that God has written it on their hearts. But when a society rejects that morality and goes their own way, without a definition for it, and without an authority to define it, then what?
Societies don't reject morality...
Or please find me a society or country or government that has stated any such nonsense as compared to what is simply the body of laws or rule of laws that people all over the planet have adopted or had imposed on them for all manner of reasons. There are good and bad leaders, good and bad people, sure, but even the bad include religious leaders, so have another look and see if you can't do a better job of what really defines and determines our morality from the beginning of Man's history to the present. What is simply good vs bad, better rather than worse. Surely you know better. Surely you know the history...
"SIX: Man's ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis."
"NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven."
What is so hard to follow? (Though it is hard to follow deleted comments).
Your comment here is what I call a "drive by" post that does nothing but lodge an insult without even any effort to justify or clarify what you want to otherwise explain. And to cap off with "never mind" is really rich. Especially after all the effort to "compare notes" with you about your beliefs. Easy enough simply not to comment instead. Don't you think?
Then again, I've posted many a comment about why such a discussion is futile anyway, so I suppose maybe you just further prove the truth about this. We can't do much about the dilemma, but helps to understand it I think...
The fact that people tend to have roughly the same idea of morality is that God has written it on their hearts. But when a society rejects that morality and goes their own way, without a definition for it, and without an authority to define it, then what?
If I am understanding you correctly here, whether we are moral because we believe in God or moral even though we don't believe in God, it's all God's doing either way? Do I have this right?
"Heads you win. Tails I lose?"
Wish I could adopt reason and logic like that, but I simply can't for reasons that should be obvious to anyone...
I tried to engage your apparent "client". I'm sure the poster can reply, if they choose to.
Engage by insult? More like good reason to ignore you, but I felt inspired to comment regardless whether anyone else cares to do the same or not. An example of promoting good vs bad you might say, again without any help from God or scripture...
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.
