I admit that I do not understand, then, your God-based moral system. My understanding was that the moral system is based on what God says: God says it is good, so it is good. God says it is bad, so it is bad. Could you please explain the system to me if this is incorrect, or perhaps even just incomplete?
A lot of christians don't realize this but it is incomplete, theres a lot of stuff that wasn't written down that people followed and stuff that was written down came from the stuff that wasn't, just reading the laws in the OT do not reflect the full meaning behind the morality in the OT, its not all there.
Are you sure? What if I baked really awesome cakes? And people all over the world loved them? Then there'd be a lot of sad people when I stopped baking.
does it have to be cake though? how about pie? i like pie
But, to answer your question: I think people who do not choose morals are not good people. Or, in the very least, that they need to learn/be taught how to be good. This is why we have laws, and jails and rehabilitation facilities, or even loving parents/guardians/caretakers/teachers...
that kind of comes off as circluar reasoning: they don't have morals so they are bad, they are bad because they have no morals, just pointing this out, since thats a common argument from the otherside for why you must have morals
the reason people should have morals is because they are useally about peoples lives, safty and property. those without morals tend to eather be dangerous to themselves or to others, or both. also those without morals tend to not fit into society and are distrusted by others, thus living a short unhappy life. morals allow a frame work to base a society on, which if we didn't have some form of morals or ethics would lead to socal self destruction.
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
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
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 culture as 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