Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,923 Year: 20,959/19,786 Month: 1,356/2,023 Week: 307/557 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 29 of 184 (380896)
01-29-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by anastasia
01-27-2007 7:04 PM


Re: Some more agreement
It doesn't. The commandments and rules of the Bible are of no use when applied without reasoning.

sometimes i wonder if some people realize this though, some people don't show any reason, its all black and white

Btw, it is 'Toward Men of Good Will', not 'Good Will Towards All'.

don't you have to define 'good' first? :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by anastasia, posted 01-27-2007 7:04 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 30 of 184 (380898)
01-29-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
01-29-2007 9:22 AM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 9:22 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 11:38 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 125 of 184 (382292)
02-04-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by anastasia
02-03-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Empathy does not equal Good
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by anastasia, posted 02-03-2007 2:09 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 12:26 PM ReverendDG has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 126 of 184 (382293)
02-04-2007 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by anastasia
02-03-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Empathy does not equal Good
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by anastasia, posted 02-03-2007 2:14 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 4:08 PM ReverendDG has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 133 of 184 (382549)
02-05-2007 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by anastasia
02-04-2007 12:26 PM


Re: Empathy does not equal Good
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 12:26 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2431 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 134 of 184 (382552)
02-05-2007 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by anastasia
02-04-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Empathy does not equal Good
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 4:08 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019