Morality without god

You confuse ethics with morals.Ethics are things you decide are proper behaviors.
Morals are imposed by the society one is raise in..We see this clearly when the Old Testament reports how patriarchs think compared to the description ofthe Gentile nations around them.The whoredoms of the sexually promiscuous gnetile nations is contrasted with the sexual prudence that people accept as they are raised in the Hebrew patriarchy.We see it today in the contrast between an Islam that, morally, believes stoning 5 or 6 wayward young, single girls is right,... while the gentile matriarchies in the West are convinced in the morality of aborting 1.2 million babies every year.Both of these examples are related also to the sexual morals regarding promiscuity and the homosexual promotions of it. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

RIGHT...That IS what Jesus said.
The Law is useless and men need a change in theirhearts.BUT,... the Law was the list of what was moral.
Morals came from the Laws that the theocracy was enforcing, not because people had ethics and would have bidded them anyway.

Already showed why your stats do not involve looking at the entire picture.Please see:
Message 1937

I think you'll find that proper education and being accepting of people would solve both of those problemsIs it too early to declare a Rationalist win?

The Pharisees though they were doing God a service by protecting the things that they had learned and were teaching about the Bible.They are exactly like NoNuke here, who is protecting the Bible interpretations he long ago accepted and is so sure is correct.
He has Faith in the interpretations thathe has learned and mouthed now for 50 years, probably.He resents a fresh look back, resists a closer and more comprehensive reading of Genesis, and is SO sure the archaic medieval story he heard Genesis supposed tells, can defy science and academic facts even, because its gotta be right.You are no better.
You believe you fully understand the Bible and have found it wanting and erroneous and wrong.
Nothing will persuade you either.It is this natural human resistance to an open minded change in thinking that has allowed the prophets to predict the tragic consequences to come throughout history.

Oh, yeah! Like David! And Solomon!You're so full of it, kofu.............

Rationalism is the idea that you can figure everything put because reasoning inside your head is where the truth lies.That was replaced by the enlightenment that we need a Scientific Method by which to deduce what is true and what is not.The very thread title here is an oxymoron."Morals," in the West today are without any Gode ndorsing them.
There, aborting 1.2 million babies is "morally" OK, while protecting, and even releasing killers back into society, usually within 7 years, is fine.Yet, "morals" with a god, as in muslim nations, execute killers, stone unmarried pregnant women, and force Homosexual propagnada for promiscuity out of public view.Yet you say morals are a consequence of internal motivations.While I say, those internal motivations are merely the ethics of a society, which will ultimately make the Laws for social behavior the Morals you refer to.

?1) Polygamy is OK in patriarchies.
In fact, David was one of the seven major patriarchs of the Jews.Islam is a patriarchy and polygamy is morally OK.2) But, David committed adultery and murder, which was NOT OK;1 Kings 11:6
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.You think the king did not know he was breaking the rules???

Why?\All you said was that your PERSONAL experience differs with the very all-overlStatistics.That just means you are in that little itty bitty group that was exceptional to the general rule.

Incorrect on everything I said in that message. Pay attention, read the message and respond. You are thinking of a different thread between us. The message I linked to explained why you are not looking at the whole picture when it comes to the death penalty and how other factors most likely played into the reduction in crime that you were pointing to in states like Texas and Virginia.So, again, please respond or admit that you are cherry picking data to prove your point.Just so you don't have to go back an entire page:
Message 1937Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I'm a little confused by ur line of argument - I intiall thought you were on the side of Objective Divine morality - but u seem to be saying that morality is subjective to the society we live in (which I more or less agree wit, although I do think an accepting and well educated society is the route to the hieghtest levels of morality)

You understand me pretty well on that.
Morals are de facto the mores of the society which are usually there, in place, when we are born.
We are raised to behave in ways to observe those rules of behavior, which we call the Morals.
They come externally to us.The morals in Islam are different from and often at odds with those in the secular West.BUT, there is one categorical imperative that all peoples everywhere must observe universally, whether we call it the "Objective Divine Morality," or Kant's philosophical Categorical Imperative:A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
(Do unto others (as you ought be able to expect) that which you would that they will do to you.) With that in mind, this matter becomes a question of whether your morals violate the Imoerative and hence are immoral.

Of course other factors come into the lowering of murder rates in Texas.
But none of those are less guns in circulation, are they?Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

He won't divulge his sources

quote:

---

Dude it's an allegorical story - u can't seriously be that anal, I am merely suggesting that to cite ones motivation for good and proper deeds is either reward or fear is not true morality and may in fact remove opertunities for truely good and morally upright behaviour.

---

Well.. Dude, it doesn't come across as an allegorical story.You presented a thought experiment according to your subtitle and presented a question at the end. No other explanation in the post.All three knights did good and rescued the princesses. The motivation doesn't make the outcome less good. Morality isn't all about thought and yes I did read the definition you provided. A little lean. Looking at various dictionaries it does come down to behavior.Your hypotheticals don't really make a case that good and proper deeds motivated by fear or reward are not right deeds or that these influences may remove opportunities for self motivated good behavior. It may even help. It all depends on the person.If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize. I'm having difficulty following your prose.