|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Ana writes: I feel that we are dualist in nature. Again, this is just a feeling. Do you base all your conclusion regarding the world on feelings?
Ana writes: I contend that my 'knowledge' of what I must do, of what is right in any situation, is not knowledge of the 'learned' variety, but of the imnparted. Total rubbish. State how this is so.
Ana writes: I only deny that 'right' is a product of our own invention. With no reason apart from a 'feeling' that this is the case? Please show how this is so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Larni writes: Humans are in debt to no entity for their existance. That is merely YOUR belief, is it not? Or have you proof of this assertion? Your belief that this is true, does not in any way make it true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Larni writes: Total rubbish. State how this is so Find me a study of a human being who has been kept alone for all of his life, and prove to me that he shows nothing of what we consider 'morality'. Then, I may believe that morals are learned. Specific moral codes are learned, morality itself is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5942 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ana writes: Find me a study of a human being who has been kept alone for all of his life, and prove to me that he shows nothing of what we consider 'morality'. Then, I may believe that morals are learned. That is a bit of extreme is it? However there may be some instruction in examining earlier cultures. Some examples without looking anything up are:
As a side note I recently I read Samuel Hearne's journal of his account exploring the northern part of Canada. Read that first witness account will change any beliefs you may have that the 10 commandments are written onto the hearts of humans. The stories told in that account haunted me for days. What we consider moral or ethics today is the result of the maturation and evolution of culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
That is merely YOUR belief, is it not? Or have you proof of this assertion?
you can't prove a negative, the default is, there is no entity to pay, you have to show its real, not us showing it doesn't
Your belief that this is true, does not in any way make it true.
nor does it make the enitity real, eather, but having no belief in something is more logical than having a belief despite no evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Find me a study of a human being who has been kept alone for all of his life, and prove to me that he shows nothing of what we consider 'morality'. Then, I may believe that morals are learned. Specific moral codes are learned, morality itself is not.
so explain to me what 'morality' is first? how do you define what is and isn't morality?unless you can show that there is some universal morality that every human who ever lived has, then all morality is learned through a culture you learn stealing from your family is wrong, murdering your family is wrong, destroying close reletives property is wrong, while on the other hand, you learn doing it to strangers is not.or you learn doing things considered wrong or bares out negitive consiquences, to anyone is wrong. please show some morality that everyone shares, because i know from anthropology, that not everyone shares the same morality cannibulism is considered only wrong if you are the one being eatten, but not to the cannibul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
ReverendDG writes: you can't prove a negative, the default is, there is no entity to pay, you have to show its real, not us showing it doesn't There is no one to thank for my blessings except nature. Thankfulness without a benefactor is called vanity. There is no default. Given a total lack of evidence I may choose to believe that I will die a natural death, or to believe that I will die suddenly and violently.
nor does it make the enitity real, eather, but having no belief in something is more logical than having a belief despite no evidence Why is it so hard to understand? You do not have no belief. You have a belief in nothing. You belief 'nothing' exists, in spite of the lack of evidence that there is no God. I believe that 'something' exists, in spite of the lack of evidence that there is a God. We all have a belief. Yours is that there is nothing more than what we see, mine is that there is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
ReverendDG writes: please show some morality that everyone shares, Oh, no. We don't share the same morals, but we certainly share morality. Our morals amount to our individual and collective best-guesses at what is 'right'. We can limit this to love for ourself, our family, and our tribe. You and Iceage have shown that morality did indeed exist amoung primitive and civilied ancient cultures, but a limited moral system which included only those toward whom we felt a kinship. The first efforts at 'civiling' the savage, were often those of the christian missionaries. History has come to despise the forced recognition of higher morals through religious leadership. Yet, that same moral system taught in the Bible and elsewhere in religious text, is the same 'love of enemies' and respect for those outside of our immediate 'tribe'. Morals have definitely come a long way, evolved, etc. We have been able to see past survival of the fittest, and have enjoyed prosperity long enough to begin to focus on the larger picture. If there is no God, where will our picture end? We are all striving for better, we are confident that better is possible, but we often fail to realize that better existed before we had even understood it. There will always be a better way, and more to learn. The only real difference is that I believe there is a 'best' a God/force perfection which is external to us and which we tap into, teaching what we have learned about it to the next generation. The onus is still on us; we need to LOOK for better, but we can't look for 'natural'. We look to ourselves and find a fight between nature, and 'better'. Sure, it is a learning process for a society, as a society is a reflection of a middle ground between the worst and the best. Our efforts at morality are not limited to what society has taught us. A single person is capable of tapping into a higher 'force' while the rest of society remains mediocre. To be concrete in terms, a saint or a hero has reached a stage of greater union with 'better' than the average member of a society. This shows me that something exists to be utilized which is greater than us, but can be found internally in great perfection while the 'tribe' is still far behind in moral developement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You make a very sad, old point here: you are the one asserting that we owe some entity our existance.
I make NO claim. The burden of proof is on you to show that what you believe is positively true. I say there is nothing there: you must bring evidence to support your positive claim. If you can't show evidence that what you believe is true, then I have nothing to attempt argue against because you have provivded no positive evidence that what you calim has any basis in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Again, you are making a claim and refuse to substantiate your positive reasons for doing so.
Please substantiate your claim or withdraw. Unless, again, you are bored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Ana writes: Thankfulness without a benefactor is called vanity. What a stupid, stupid position to hold. I am thankful today that the sun is out. I know that there is no one to thank, but because human brains infer causality I 'feel' thankful. How the hell is that vanity?
Ana writes: in spite of the lack of evidence that there is no God. As has been explained several time to you before: this is appallingly bad logic.
Ana writes: Yours is that there is nothing more than what we see, mine is that there is. Again: You. Need. To. Substantiate. Your. Assertion. With. Positive. Evidence. I could assert that the IPU tells me how to live my live via telepathy and will take me away to its' cloud when I die to live with all the other invisible coloured unicorns and there is NO WAY that you could proove I was wrong. Thats why you can't look for negative evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You still have to show that this 'higher force' exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
There is no one to thank for my blessings except nature. Thankfulness without a benefactor is called vanity.
and this has what to do with what i said? what you are saying is irrelevent.
There is no default. Given a total lack of evidence I may choose to believe that I will die a natural death, or to believe that I will die suddenly and violently.
what are you talking about? what does this even mean? i don't see how it relates to what i said about the default of the existince of god or the supernatural is it doesn't exist till shown it does
Why is it so hard to understand? You do not have no belief. You have a belief in nothing. You belief 'nothing' exists, in spite of the lack of evidence that there is no God. I believe that 'something' exists, in spite of the lack of evidence that there is a God. We all have a belief. Yours is that there is nothing more than what we see, mine is that there is.
where did i say anything about my belief or lack there of? i believe there is a force out there, belief is belief though, its a pure subjective thing. i do believe in a god, just not the christian personal god or the islamic or any of the religions that exist now, they are all wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Oh, no. We don't share the same morals, but we certainly share morality. Our morals amount to our individual and collective best-guesses at what is 'right'. We can limit this to love for ourself, our family, and our tribe. You and Iceage have shown that morality did indeed exist amoung primitive and civilied ancient cultures, but a limited moral system which included only those toward whom we felt a kinship.
you change the meaning of morals and what is considered a moral right in the middle of that paragraph, they arn't morals they are ethics anyway. becides you didn't answer my question, please show a morality people share, in all my time learning not one culture has shown the same morals in the same way as another has, they vary more than they are alike
To be concrete in terms, a saint or a hero has reached a stage of greater union with 'better' than the average member of a society. This shows me that something exists to be utilized which is greater than us, but can be found internally in great perfection while the 'tribe' is still far behind in moral developement.
hmm well better is reletive to the society, thats my point, there is no concrete 'better' that is universal it varies greatly from culture to cultureas for saints and heroes, they are people who exemplify the ideal, it doesn't mean they really are better, they are just precieved to be. yes i agree that humans can think above even the cultural norms and rules and be better people, but i don't really see the bible as an example of this moral ideal, half of it is full of exclusionary laws and the other half has always set a conflicting view of what people were trying to present
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Because social interactions are incredibly complex, ana, despite you wanting it to be easy and simple to look at and understand. It isn't an either-or equation. Power is part of our survival phychology as well, as is in-group/out-group xenophobia type feelings.
quote: It is both, that is correct. But so are lots and lots of other feelings and behaviors.
quote: It certainly can be. But all of this reply of yours is another attempt to avoid the issue. You wrote:
And yes, 'love thy neighbor' is preached in many ancient religious texts, way before any behavior science tried to claim it was survival instinct. No one has to preach survival as if they were driving a mule. We already have plenty of natural selfishness driving our survival, and plenty of intelligence to make it work. You seems to me to be claiming that it is only selfishness that "drives survival", but that is not true. Empathy and cooperation also drive survival. Now, I do wish you would answer this question I keep asking: You wrote:
quote: Yeah, and the answer the writers of the Bible give us is "Godidit." What now? How does that increase our understanding of anything at all? 'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"- Ned Flanders
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024