Morality

Quote:

---

I discourage firearms ownership among my friends who drink, have another substance abuse problem, are hotheads, seem prone to depression. I advise anyone with children to keep firearms either out of the house or locked away like Fort Knox.

---

There are already laws in America involving drinking and firearms. I would say don't drink. How many crimes and accidents of all natures are alcohol-related? More children drown in the bathtub than die from accidental gunshot wounds. We need to teach responsibility, for with every right comes a responsibility. It is my right to own a gun; it is my responsibility to make sure that it functions, and that I know how to operate it safely. Also we need to teach them morality, which has been removed from the schools. If we tell them that it is wrong to do something, such as kill people, we should tell them why it is wrong. It is my right to vote; it is my responsibility to know what the candidates stand for. Especially relevant today as it is a primary election day. And please, stop talking about democracy. Democracy leads to anarchy, where everybody's rights get trampled on, and the fickle opinions of the mob hold sway. The US is a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law, ignored as it is nowadays.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

There are already laws in America involving drinking and firearms. I would say don't drink. How many crimes and accidents of all natures are alcohol-related? More children drown in the bathtub than die from accidental gunshot wounds. We need to teach responsibility, for with every right comes a responsibility. It is my right to own a gun; it is my responsibility to make sure that it functions, and that I know how to operate it safely. Also we need to teach them morality, which has been removed from the schools. If we tell them that it is wrong to do something, such as kill people, we should tell them why it is wrong. It is my right to vote; it is my responsibility to know what the candidates stand for. Especially relevant today as it is a primary election day. And please, stop talking about democracy. Democracy leads to anarchy, where everybody's rights get trampled on, and the fickle opinions of the mob hold sway. The US is a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law, ignored as it is nowadays.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

---

How do you teach morality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

How do you teach morality?

---

Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...

it's quite simple, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...

it's quite simple, really.

---

Downside is, someone in the second category forget about the first and it can really bite back hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Downside is, someone in the second category forget about the first and it can really bite back hard.

---

That's why we invented absolutely awesome stuff like laws, state-monopoly-violence and prisons...

Also the international court of Haag, it's only that scumbag nations don't adhere to it. With scumbag nations I mean USA, Israel, and other warmongering nations that doesn't seem to make even a decade without war.

Silly scumbag nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...

it's quite simple, really.

---

This is terrible logic. What if I am really into public flogging........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

How do you teach morality?

---

Ethics lessons, behavioural training, 'learning by doing', internationalism, etc. There are many ways of teaching morality.


Including brainwashing, of course.

Also, as for the post ACIN replied to:

In order for an agent to take an action, it needs both the opportunity AND the motivation to take that action. Democracy has few safeguards against mob rule and anarchy; sure. There is plenty of opportunity to oppress within a democracy. But as Tocqueville argued, democracy also removes the motivation to oppress. That's why democracy simply will not decend into mob rule and anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is terrible logic. What if I am really into public flogging........

---

Then you'll have to pay for the service like everyone else. Stilettos and leather gear are extra.

Teaching morality requires absolutes. For me, that is the Bible. A lot of those things, do unto others as you would have done to you, and such like, are biblical principals. The problem is, with the evolutionary rotgut pervading society, there are no absolutes. It is taught that man is just an animal. Well, no wonder we see school shootings. It shows that people understand what they have been taught. And so what? If evolution is true, then what is wrong with shooting somebody on a whim? Evolution is based on survival of the fittest. There are no true rights in an evolutionary society, for there is no higher power to bestow those rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

Teaching morality requires absolutes.

---

Nonsense.

Then what makes wrong wrong, and what makes right right? If I decide that I want to commit some horrible crime, who is to say what I am doing is wrong? You? Somebody else? What makes that other person the authority to say what is right? They are human, just like me. For true rights, you need somebody above the human realm, who tells us what is right. That is God. Why does every society, no matter how primitive, worship something? Worship is ingrained in us as humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

Then what makes wrong wrong, and what makes right right?

---

Lrn2philosophy.

Have some linkys.

There is the link with Oxytocin too.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_tr...y_and_oxytocin

???? And who is to say the philosophers are right? They are just humans after all, too. You need an ultimate authority. Look at what happened in America when we kicked God out of the schools. Violent crime, teen pregnancy, drug use all skyrocketed. Used to be nobody thought anything if a kid brought a gun to school. Nowadays it is not a good sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

And who is to say the philosophers are right?

---

....And who is to say you are right? Who is to say this god of yours is right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

You need an ultimate authority.

---

lol, no. This is PRATT.

You may need an ultimate authority. We do not.

Also, you are indeed correct that everyone was nice back when God was a part of American schools.

You are spot on Vincent. Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals. It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.

Lest anyone get offended, I am not saying atheists have no morality. I am saying that their moral views are inconsistent with their atheism.

BTW, I hope you'll be sticking around because I could do with some backup here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.

---

Rubbish.

For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning? It brings enjoyment and pleasure to all. Sex is also a very healthy activity. Christian morals say free sex is wrong. This approach brings no pleasure and makes everyone stuck up wussies. Atheist morals are supreme.


That you don't understand what atheism is about has no effect on atheists being moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Rubbish. For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning?....

---

That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.

---

It most certainly is not moral relativism. I do not claim that other views on sexuality are just as moral as this. In fact, I claim that some of them are immoral.


Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent, and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent.

---

Sure it does. Twice a year and in a very visual way.

Quote:

---

...and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.

---

Two things:
1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.
2. There are plenty of cocaine users who aren't addicts by any stretch of imagination (such as 1st time users).


You are a moral relativist. To each their own, but that's what your are. Whether that's a positive thing or a negative is largely a personal preference, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that you are a classic moral relativist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.

---

Yup, I do.

Why shouldn't I get to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why shouldn't I get to?

---

Because you're not them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Because you're not them.

---

So?

The ability to make rational decisions is not subjective quality. It can, in fact, only be determined by an objective observer according to a set definition.

Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.

---

Hence my extremely brief replies ~;)

The thing is, we are just people. With God, well, since he created everything he gets to decide what is right. By his very nature what he does is always just. I know there are people who claim to be atheists, who will say God does not exist. Sure, I take His existence by faith, the Bible says that we walk by faith, not by sight. They take it by faith that there is no God. Well, who determines for them what is right and wrong? If they determine that themselves, then they are a god. If the government, or whoever else, decides that, then they have become a god. Everybody has a god or gods of one kind or another, they may not realize it. HoreTore, in this case, by defining what, in essence, you believe to be right, you, as a fallible human, become your own god. The question boils down to, who determines what is right? I certainly would not leave it to men. Look at what happens when men attempt to seize that power, they ALWAYS abuse it.

Since there is no god, your own morals are decided by men as well.

The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do. This is false.

You may have a god. I do not.

Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.

But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?

Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.

And the existence of morality doesn't prove there is a higher being either.

The point of view we are missing: do 'believers' only not commit a 'sin' because 'god' told them not to? That is the scarey thought, that without the threat of divine retribution, they would do all the manner of unspeakable things. Maybe that is where the concern is, as HoreTore put out there with psychological projection, they only 'behave' as they think will be punished for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Rubbish.

For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning? It brings enjoyment and pleasure to all. Sex is also a very healthy activity. Christian morals say free sex is wrong. This approach brings no pleasure and makes everyone stuck up wussies. Atheist morals are supreme.

---

What are these morals of yours based on?

I have God as a universal arbiter. How can you claim in the absolute rightness of your morals without such a figure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.

But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?

Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.

Could go all day with this...

---

Is your point that Judeo-Christian morals are wrong, or that the very concept of absolute morality is wrong?

Also, the Bible addresses the points you raise against Christianity - namely, that people follow other moral systems, and that these differ to some degree for the Christian one. On your first point, the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)

As for your second point, these other moral systems came to differ from the true law as revealed in the Bible, because of a process of degeneration which began when they corrupted their worship of God:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. For that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for he has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse. For when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and to fourfooted beasts, and to creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them over to uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and who worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18-25)

There are a lot of very relevant themes in that passage right there. Not least the glorification of the created above the creator, which is so central to the supposedly moral beliefs of todays humanists. And from a historical viewpoint as well, it documents how the corrupted pagan and polytheist religions like Hinduism and Greek paganism emerged from a degeneration of the original monotheism of mankind.

Here we go again.


1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.

2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.

3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..

---

Because wearing a condom is preached as a bigger sin than sex before marriage.

Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.

If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:

A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle

and then pick one ffs.

And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

Quote:

---

The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do. This is false

---

Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values.

---

Where in the bible does it say that teen pregnancy is wrong? And why were girls married as young as 12(so they could get pregnant in their teenage years) in medieval times, one of the periods in history that is characterised by a strict lifestyle based on Christian values?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

---

And for some people it is their religiosity or "christian values"...

The term "teen pregnancy" is usually used with the understanding that the pregnancy is outside of wedlock. As such, the girl (and guy) would be guilty of fornication, which is a sin. The guy is just as much in the wrong as the girl. If a teenager gets married, and marriages at eighteen or nineteen are not rare, or sometimes younger (though not necessarily advisable), and gets pregnant, that is usually not considered when people talk about when they say "teen pregnancy". Girls getting married at twelve is not wise, as her body is not yet ready for pregnancy. But they had such a short lifespan (partially aided by the pregnancies at that age) that it was important to have children at a young age. I am by no means excusing that practice, I deplore it. There was nothing strictly Christian about the medieval times, just curious, what makes you say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals.

---

Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.

Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

---

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.

---

What biblical values? To keep slaves? To send women out to be gang raped?

How would your culture be better off by that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

---

Then it's not really saying much, because the things specified in the 10 commandments are either:

1) idiosyncrasies of Judaism/Christianity, such as monotheism and ban on idolatery
2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

---

Then we really have found absolute morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Then it's not really saying much...

---

Perhaps that's the key to being timeless: brevity and simplicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

---

Let's not overwhelm the poor guy with clear and utterly sane posts adhering to logic...

Instead let him slowly bleed out, till he becomes one of us..*

* Bitter, broken and possibly a danger to society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

Violent crime, teen pregnancy, drug use all skyrocketed.

---

Actually, teen pregnancy went way down, violent crime also decreased, and drug use mostly went down as well.

This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:

1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

---

I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."

---

Oh I know, that's my point. I am just saying that as an atheist with my own "absolute morals" I still would go that route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

You are spot on Vincent. Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals. It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.

Lest anyone get offended, I am not saying atheists have no morality. I am saying that their moral views are inconsistent with their atheism.

BTW, I hope you'll be sticking around because I could do with some backup here!

---

Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)

Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc

=][=

Also I take exception about not talking about Democracy. This isn't a USA only forum. It is international and a lot of us live in functioning democracies with:
Higher literacy
Longer lifespans
Cheaper education
Universal Healthcare
Dearth of school shootings

So maybe it isn't religious makeup, or gun rights, or personel responsibility it is not being a democracy that is the fault with USA.

I just want gay atheists to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!!

Yeah... One really shouldnt be too concerned about US issues on an international board... Nor christian ones, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

What are these morals of yours based on?

---

The common good, mostly.

Reason. Logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

A. Read some Mill

---

Mill despised atheism, though.

Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mill despised atheism, though.

Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.

---

According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!

---

Wow! Two!

Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...

I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I try my best to be clear in what I am saying, but it seems that people will just not pay the least bit of attention to what I say. It's almost as if people presume I am saying one thing, and argue against that, without realising that I am in fact saying very much the opposite...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Here we go again.

1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.

2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.

---

My post directly above yours clearly states:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me in the post directly above Kad's

the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)"

---

So, what point of mine were you arguing against when you made your post Kad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.

If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:

A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle

and then pick one ffs.

---

Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.

IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.

---

God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.

---

I applaud your honesty in saying that atheism and absolute morality are not compatible. Of course, I do not think of absolute morality as absurd, but that is because I am thinking within a theistic framework. I realise that you will also consider that to be absurd, but at least we are being honest with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

---

Whatever so-called Christians may have said or done throughout history, the Christian position is ultimately that the Bible alone contains a true revelation of the unchanging moral order. The actions of all Christians should be held to that standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)

Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc

---

As I said to Kralizec, I applaud your honesty in not attempting to reconcile atheism with absolute morality. If you do not hold to absolute morals, then that position is perfectly compatible with your atheism.

I posted in this thread to highlight the hypocrisy of those atheists who try to argue for an absolute, objective moral order without God. I'll not start any wider arguments over other points in the meantime.

I don't believe in secular "morality". To me, those are just manners, and who gives a shit about manners? There are either transcendent reasons to do or not do something, or it is up to an individual to determine If an action would benefit them more than it would hurt them and compare that consequence with their desire to do the action.

On the flip side, I believe in a secular public legal system and a minimalist State. I am perfectly happy accepting the Bible as my personal superlative; I am legally free to be a hypocrite if my will or personal reason/logic supersedes something that I read in the Bible. I am not okay with government developing laws based on the Bible/Koran/Fight Club/etc.

Down with laws, up with personal morality which is taught in the home and in communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

---

Which is kinda funny because there have been at least 7 differring official versions and the translation has been interprited in many ways, the most egregous being though shalt not murder/kill.

Also, commandments 1-3 (Catholic edition) are superfluous to non abrahamic societies and 4 is naiively ignoring the possibility of your father and/or mother being completely underserving of honour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.

IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.

---

Oh god. Now I have to remember all the intro PHIL classes I have taken.

Mill's utilitarianism is based on maximizing utility AKA happiness. Scientifically you can pretty much verify that almost every human at least has various receptors which do communicate a signal that is interpreted as pain or pleasure. So while the individual experience may be subjective, the presence of pain and pleasure is objectively universal and so we can build off of that without invoking God.

Aristotle if I remember the beginning to Nicomachean Ethics correctly doesn't even bother with first principles. He lays out a guideline for particular humans and kind of waves away the foundation by saying it is not really important to define the Good (like Plato tries) before promoting what is Good.

I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.

Quote:

---

God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?

---

They care more. The monotheistic route at its core is that there a God and you need to obey him, the differences in religion are superficial rituals. The secular route kind of gets treated as a buffet where people pick and choose what they like for individual situations. I personally still try to understand more about Kant and Aristotle because I actually take it seriously as to which I choose to follow.

I remember having an argument with my ex (who I inadvertently turned into an atheist) where she was trying to argue why pirating songs and movies wasn't wrong. It was silly and I didn't understand why something so clearly wrong by any standard is so common among people who are otherwise 'moral' and like to take pride that they don't need God to be nice to fellow people.

Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wow! Two!

Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...

I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.

---

I was being a bit facetious lol. As for On Liberty, you might need to dig deeper because it is possible that he said that in order to make his work more palatable to the public. Keep in mind, Mill was also one of the first to write in the public sphere for the inclusion of women into society and the human rights of women. You can only rock the boat so much before you start hindering your message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...

---

????? No government = stealing property is ok?

ITT: One side makes shit arguments, and the other responds in kind; we all end up swimming in shit.

A lot of otherwise-clever people here are putting together posts so stupid they're not even worth parodying; every step is incorrect. :shame:

Joke is on you, because I am not a clever man. You have been wasting time reading shit from a moron.

EDIT: But maybe you can lay the foundation for a non-shit discussion.

Not on a mobile I won't. I might start a clean thread in some days.

vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog:daisy:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog:daisy:.

---

You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.

Due to monetary constraints I have not watched any 'superhero' movie of any kind since iron man 2, with the sole exception of the Dark Knight Rises. It really has not impacted me negatively in the slightest, so I don't understand why people assert that pop culture phenomenons should be freely available to everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.

---

I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.

---

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

---

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.

---

They don't care about you now. What's the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

They don't care about you now. What's the difference?

---

If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.

---

Your argument is nonsensical. This is close to the discussion I had with my ex.

I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product. If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person. If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist. It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed.

EDIT: Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

---

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

Quote:

---

I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product.

---

Not neccissarily: sometimes I like the prduct but I dont want my money going to the maker because they are abhorrent.

Quote:

---

If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person.

---

Indeed, I am under no delusion that my actions will hurt them any more than they let it. But they keep letting it

Quote:

---

If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist.

---

Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.

Quote:

---

It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed.

---

Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.

I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?

Quote:

---

Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable.

---

...You come from a nation founded on petty rebellion, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

---

The more specific the example, the less of a problem it becomes philosophically imo. You still do not have to reply even if he is threatening you. You always have the ability to be silent. Posing a scenario where the murderer somehow has the ability to compel you to say something starts to become silly. If the point of the example is that there is a situation where there are only two possible choices, lie or have the man be killed then I still don't see the problem that people have. You have a forced a situation where someone's duty is to be broken. Categorical Imperative in its first formulation is to treat people as ends in themselves not as a means to an end. Given the choice between the death of a rational being or lying, you must lie because to let the person die for the sake of upholding duty is in fact breaking your duty by treating his life as a means to an end (satisfying duty).

Not a perfect answer obviously. But then again, I try to live according to Aristotle's ethics than Kant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.

---

So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?

Where's slavery immoral?

Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?

Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals. It's an aknowledgement that the basis of morals comes from the dominating thoughts and emotions that runs through society. Those change with time and place. The diadvantage is that it's easier to claim that something you do is moral, since that argument can always be told (although far from won).
The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.

Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.

Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.

I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?

---

Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.

Quote:

---

...You come from a nation where your most memorable event is civil disobediance, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?

---

Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.

Reg. piracy:

Nationalize everything. Make everything free, pay the artists through taxation. A perfect solution, fit for anyone named Stalin. I see no reason why a world-famous singer/guitar player/actor/whatever should be excused from working part time at the local Wal-Mart to make ends meet.

Show-biz is an utter waste of money. The less money they get, the better it is.

Piracy is only really morally problematic if you respect the free market. Being a stinkin' commie, I don't have much respect for the free market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.

---

No, but when I pay for a copy of frankenstien and the last act is replaced by 50 shades of grey I am going to get dissapointed. When I pay to watch star wars and I get some 5 year old's reenactment I get annoyed. When I go to see a play on the intricacies of the elizabethan court and it turns out the message is: the sky is green, I'm goinng to get mad. This is what we get in the gaming industry: unfinished tripe and abrupt changes in quality. Buggy games and crappy stories all due to cut corners, and precisely because it is entertainment I am not allowed to get my money back for false advertising.

I have been burned many times by great series ending on shit, great promise not being delivered and because I couldnt find out without playing or watching to the end I ended up spending money on products I would have otherwise not have touched with a 10 foot pole. So yeah, I have been burned. Piracy lets me test things before putting down money and it gives me the only way of getting a response from a willfully deaf industry.

Quote:

---

Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.

---

My apologies, I should have said: petty rebellion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?

---

The Bible frowns upon intoxication regardless of its source. Cocaine in itself is neither moral or immoral, it's just a chemical. Same with alcohol.

Quote:

---

Where's slavery immoral?

---

Are you talking about the Ante-bellum South chattel slavery? It's not addressed in the Bible because it did not exist at the time.

Quote:

---

Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?

---

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Quote:

---

Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals.

---

I never claimed otherwise.

Quote:

---

The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.

---

People can claim whatever they want in the name of whatever they want. That doesn't change the morality of what they do. Also, when I claim that morals laws are absolute, that doesn't mean that I actually know what they are. I only assert that they exist and make a guess about what they might be.

Quote:

---

Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).

---

Well, that's humans for you, nothing new here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:

1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

---

Concerning #2 I share a similar experience. May I also make a couple more observations about these Good Christians:

1 - they don't evangelize and push their specific religion on others. They focus on the values, not the motivation.
2 - I've only heard a couple of these people suggest that religion should be in schools and have heard others argue distinctly against religion in schools.