P
PickyPicky
Guest
My first point would be that what makes you feel good is not the same as what is in your best interest. Split the two and you may be getting somewhere.
- Status
L
laylow
Guest
Summary:
Human morality evolves, many times quite slowly as people learn more about the Human experience.
The religious will say the morality doesn’t change because it is controlled by God, or that morality is God, it is the human’s understanding of it that changes. What they are reluctant to admit is that this new “understanding” begins to stretch the original meanings of the ancient writings and fills it with “modern interpretation” which is just a fancy way of saying that some of that stuff was wrong and it makes sense to act differently now.
The nonreligious will say that indeed morality evolves due to this learning and the consensus of humanity itself.
Human morality evolves, many times quite slowly as people learn more about the Human experience.
The religious will say the morality doesn’t change because it is controlled by God, or that morality is God, it is the human’s understanding of it that changes. What they are reluctant to admit is that this new “understanding” begins to stretch the original meanings of the ancient writings and fills it with “modern interpretation” which is just a fancy way of saying that some of that stuff was wrong and it makes sense to act differently now.
The nonreligious will say that indeed morality evolves due to this learning and the consensus of humanity itself.
E
Ender
Guest
However each of us imagines it, and ignoring the situations where it is difficult to choose between option A and option B, is there any argument against doing whatever I perceive to be in my personal best interest?
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
Well said. The atheists I know have morals without believing in God. If you have empathy, I will contend that you can have morality with or without God. It may be a different kind of morality, but it is morality nonetheless.
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
You post has a tone of disrespect. You wouldn’t like it if someone called the god you bellieve in a sky fairy.
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I think there is misunderstanding here about atheists. Atheists don’t worry about what the purpose of life is, or about what will happen to “them” once their human body dies. Most don’t believe in an afterlife. They still live moral lives, just the same. Their justification for living a moral life is to keep the “here and now” as good as it can be. True, that can mean different things to different people. However, a common thread runs through the atheists I know. Basically, living by the golden rule and, at the very least, doing no harm is how they live. It is morality at play, just a different morality from religious people. Morality truly is subjective much of the time. We even see it here at CAF.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The argument that you might make against it, and that I might make against it, would be that we have a responsibility towards others (if that responsibility in the case in question runs counter to your personal best interest). That responsibility comes from our sense of morality, which is produced primarily by empathy.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The point you are making, Ender, would be just as unconvincing if make to a Christian. He/she also considers personal best interest in making moral decisions — including, of course, the pleasure in carrying out God’s will, and the hope of eternal life hereafter.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The issue, comically enough, is that moral bases proposed by secularists are vulnerable to exactly the same critiques use by those same secularists to set aside theism.
They usually realize this when they start pontificating/moralizing based on broad, nebulous ideas like “the trajectory of human experience” or some other vacuous tripe.
Has me in total fits.
Last edited:
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
Fine to be amused by the similarities you see. Not fine to copy bad behavior by speaking about others’ god in a derogatory manner.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Fine fine fine.
“Sorry” to all involved, including Damien.
“Sorry” to all involved, including Damien.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Sounds like he is asking you a leading question. No doubt he already has an answer. You might both, first, define morality so that you have a common definition. I suspect you’ll have a very difficult time arriving at a definition you both will accept. But without that common ground, the discussion will be rather fruitless. Christian Morality has a s its foundation God’s own goodness and the goodness of all creation. That understanding of morality will certainly be a deal-breaker for your friend as it rather defeats the purpose of his question from the outset.
P
PetraG
Guest
I’m not sure I understand the question. Existence isn’t possible without God. How could morality be possible without God? More to the point, what does morality even mean in the absence of God? Why wouldn’t each human be equally endowed with the authority to deem what is an is not moral, making it all a matter of opinion?
Does the person mean is it possible for a society to come to a code of morality and keep it if God were to refrain from bestowing the grace necessary for people to correctly form a conscience? The question has me confused.
Does the person mean is it possible for a society to come to a code of morality and keep it if God were to refrain from bestowing the grace necessary for people to correctly form a conscience? The question has me confused.
E
Ender
Guest
I would argue that it is entirely subjective. How could it be otherwise. What would be the source of objective morality?
Why do I have a responsibility to other if that entails harm to me? What is the source of that responsibility, and why should I accept that it exists?
Does this mean you agree that I should consider only my own best interest in making decisions? And if not, why not?
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
How is referencing a deity’s position better? You have to first understand why they want you to do something and then you assess it to see if it is good or bad right? So what standard are you using to see if it is good or bad? We do this by assessing the goal of the situation. Some commands are amoral, that is, don’t have anything to do with moral issues. They are benign. Others are not. So any commandment that affects people, you use the reference of Human Well-Being to see if it is a moral commandment or not. If you are not ever going to think about this entity’s commandments, then you are no longer being a morally thinking individual and are just obeying the commandments. You are jumping off the couch just because the dear leader told you to, but you never assess the situation to understand why you should or if it is a bad or good reason to do that. Just bypass your deity as a reference and just assess situations as we all do. If you don’t know if you landed on a good or bad action as a result, then ask your deity to have a conversation with you to explain which is which. But I’d bet my house that you don’t hear anything back but white noise. You will from people though.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, it means both you and I refer to our morality and allow that to influence our behaviour, and neither of us considers only our own best interest. We believe we should do this because our morality tells us so. And our morality is produced primarily by empathy.
L
laylow
Guest
The huge difference is that secularists are much more open to progression of said experience, instead of relying on “set in stone” ideas which eventually move forward, but with unnecessary suffering.The issue, comically enough, is that moral bases proposed by secularists are vulnerable to exactly the same critiques use by those same secularists to set aside theism.
They usually realize this when they start pontificating/moralizing based on broad, nebulous ideas like “the trajectory of human experience” or some other vacuous tripe.
Has me in total fits.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
My counter is how obviously malleable religion is. Compare 13th century Catholicism to 21st century Catholicism or Hinduism across all its wild developments.Vonsalza:
The huge difference is that secularists are much more open to progression of said experience, instead of relying on “set in stone” ideas which eventually move forward, but with unnecessary suffering.The issue, comically enough, is that moral bases proposed by secularists are vulnerable to exactly the same critiques use by those same secularists to set aside theism.
They usually realize this when they start pontificating/moralizing based on broad, nebulous ideas like “the trajectory of human experience” or some other vacuous tripe.
Has me in total fits.
I don’t see how any secularist can say it’s “set in stone”.
L
laylow
Guest
Set in stone, relative to secularist thought. Gay rights would probably be the modern example.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
On that particular example I’d be pretty quick to remind you of the secular arguments against the normalization of homosexual behavior.Vonsalza:
Set in stone, relative to secularist thought. Gay rights would probably be the modern example.
Homosexuality in sexually reproducing species is an anomaly. I don’t need a god to tell you that.
- Status