Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Your missing the point of the premise entirely. Read it again and relate to me what the premise is and what is wrong before offering another reason for your own premise - Otherwise I just wont respond to you anymore, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Your missing the point of the premise entirely. Read it again and relate to me what the premise is and what is wrong before offering another reason for your own premise - Otherwise I just wont respond to you anymore, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 I got the premise. You don't seem to understand the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 I got the premise. You don't seem to understand the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by -Assy- i tried but I never really found a question or statement so I improvised. Agreed. The OP seemed to base a premise. You mentioned "universally condemned," which seemed an appropriate response IMO. At some point, counting in crowding of people and other changes over time, it became important to put forth rules to keep some form of order. Religions, both pre and post-Biblical, helped to give reasons behind many rules, such as being mandated by God (or various gods) relating to whatever fable might be involved. Of course, a quick search through the Bible (as well as many other religions' texts) will reveal major inconsistencies, such as "Thou shall not kill" vs. commands to massacre entire cities, women and children included. One thing that helped break me free from those who tried to control me once they discovered I believed in a God -- taking a look at very important specific scriptures and taking note not to just pass over them because they didn't fit in with my thinking, such as: I also broke free from the tight confines of right wing religious thinking. Watching hypocrite televangelists helped. But starting to take note that many if not most right wing Christians are very strongly for war when their political party is in charge and is looking to start them. I've also noticed many seem to have little to absolutely no care for the lives of people in other countries and of other religions and cultures. They instead seem to be very happy to support the same money changers Jesus would kick out of the temples. I don't see Jesus in any of their moral actions other than those who truly do try to help feed and clothe the poor, those who care about others regardless of differences in religion, culture, and physical appearance. There are many who are "good" in these ways IMO, but there may be many more who probably aren't (note: I'm not trying to push a left-wing view -- just my thoughts of the more vocal political Chrisitians on the right side of the spectrum after being a part of it for a long time). This line of thinking led me to understand that, while religion has helped implement very important moral codes, most people do not need religion to see the difference between basic rights and wrongs. I think a more universal view is along the lines of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" or "do as you will as long as it does no harm to anyone else." Again, I think as civilizations became more crowded over time, it became even more important to be able to develop rules that would prevent total chaos. But many cultures still obviously had brutal views of morality at points, anyway. But a more basic answer: in what would amount to a vacuum, morality would most likely not matter at all. But when there is interaction among others, how we treat other life around us, etc., there are consequences for actions -- outcomes that may or may not be desirable. Those who wish for desirable outcomes will probably try a bit more to contain any desire to wreak havoc. There will always be exceptions, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by -Assy- i tried but I never really found a question or statement so I improvised. Agreed. The OP seemed to base a premise. You mentioned "universally condemned," which seemed an appropriate response IMO. At some point, counting in crowding of people and other changes over time, it became important to put forth rules to keep some form of order. Religions, both pre and post-Biblical, helped to give reasons behind many rules, such as being mandated by God (or various gods) relating to whatever fable might be involved. Of course, a quick search through the Bible (as well as many other religions' texts) will reveal major inconsistencies, such as "Thou shall not kill" vs. commands to massacre entire cities, women and children included. One thing that helped break me free from those who tried to control me once they discovered I believed in a God -- taking a look at very important specific scriptures and taking note not to just pass over them because they didn't fit in with my thinking, such as: I also broke free from the tight confines of right wing religious thinking. Watching hypocrite televangelists helped. But starting to take note that many if not most right wing Christians are very strongly for war when their political party is in charge and is looking to start them. I've also noticed many seem to have little to absolutely no care for the lives of people in other countries and of other religions and cultures. They instead seem to be very happy to support the same money changers Jesus would kick out of the temples. I don't see Jesus in any of their moral actions other than those who truly do try to help feed and clothe the poor, those who care about others regardless of differences in religion, culture, and physical appearance. There are many who are "good" in these ways IMO, but there may be many more who probably aren't (note: I'm not trying to push a left-wing view -- just my thoughts of the more vocal political Chrisitians on the right side of the spectrum after being a part of it for a long time). This line of thinking led me to understand that, while religion has helped implement very important moral codes, most people do not need religion to see the difference between basic rights and wrongs. I think a more universal view is along the lines of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" or "do as you will as long as it does no harm to anyone else." Again, I think as civilizations became more crowded over time, it became even more important to be able to develop rules that would prevent total chaos. But many cultures still obviously had brutal views of morality at points, anyway. But a more basic answer: in what would amount to a vacuum, morality would most likely not matter at all. But when there is interaction among others, how we treat other life around us, etc., there are consequences for actions -- outcomes that may or may not be desirable. Those who wish for desirable outcomes will probably try a bit more to contain any desire to wreak havoc. There will always be exceptions, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 it varies throughout the globe , I'm no scholar but when I look at some Indian and Arab culture and especially at rights for women and children , it looks full-on wack job to me . I just go with my gut , don't kill anyone unless they try to kill me first . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 it varies throughout the globe , I'm no scholar but when I look at some Indian and Arab culture and especially at rights for women and children , it looks full-on wack job to me . I just go with my gut , don't kill anyone unless they try to kill me first . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members K-Bizzle Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Are you implying that non-believers are actually secret believers who just don't want to admit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members K-Bizzle Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Are you implying that non-believers are actually secret believers who just don't want to admit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 No morality in a vacuum. It ain't is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 No morality in a vacuum. It ain't is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by K-Bizzle Are you implying that non-believers are actually secret believers who just don't want to admit it? Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? Originally Posted by Phrophus No morality in a vacuum. It ain't is. sorry, not following your jive here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by K-Bizzle Are you implying that non-believers are actually secret believers who just don't want to admit it? Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? Originally Posted by Phrophus No morality in a vacuum. It ain't is. sorry, not following your jive here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meelosh123 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Rey Gato Gibberish. This. Based on other stuff posted by OP, he isn't worth the time it takes to actually think about anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meelosh123 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Rey Gato Gibberish. This. Based on other stuff posted by OP, he isn't worth the time it takes to actually think about anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, I am not presuming morality is not possible absent a higher power; I am simply asking why this wouldnt be possible if you truly believed in no other higher form of morality beyond what you deem for yourself? What in the flying buttmonkeys do you mean here? There are two double negatives in that sentence and you're asking people to disprove a premise given that the premise is true. DO.... LESS.. DRUGS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Again, I am not presuming morality is not possible absent a higher power; I am simply asking why this wouldnt be possible if you truly believed in no other higher form of morality beyond what you deem for yourself? What in the flying buttmonkeys do you mean here? There are two double negatives in that sentence and you're asking people to disprove a premise given that the premise is true. DO.... LESS.. DRUGS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 A true atheist would look to science and logical understanding to answer this question: evolution and altruistic behavior. So of course this person would act moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 A true atheist would look to science and logical understanding to answer this question: evolution and altruistic behavior. So of course this person would act moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? sorry, not following your jive here. I'd assume that most atheists recognize a moral authority, just not the one that you recognize. My jive was saying that morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Not at all In the most blunt terms, I am asking if an atheist truly doesnt acknowledge any moral authority beyond self, then shouldnt it should be equally permissible to drink water as it is to harm another being? sorry, not following your jive here. I'd assume that most atheists recognize a moral authority, just not the one that you recognize. My jive was saying that morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Or, I could just as easily deem that killing for leisure is just as profitable for my purposes as being nice to others. You certainly could, but as a whole, we got to where we are over the course of human history because more people believed in not killing other human beings (at least those in their tribe/nation/whatever) than did believe it was OK. If you're asking how those of us who do not believe in a higher power still manage to believe in some form of "morality", that's an extremely complex question. Having done some studying of the well-known philosophers and philosophical positions over the course of human history, the concept of some form of absolute moral "right and wrong" is not completely uncommon, even in those who did not believe or did not preach the concept of a higher power. Your statement that the concept of a higher power is necessary for some form of moral compass reminds me of Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." For some people, having that compass is necessary to feel as though there is some absolute truth somewhere outside of simply our own intrinsic nature. Personally, I believe that even without the concept of God, humans would not have been able to succeed as a race without some degree of reliance on other people, so killing them or harming them would have also, at the end of the day, harmed one's own chance at survival. This intrinsic self-preservation motive may well be why we were able to evolve to the point of having civilized societies, as well as developing some concept of a higher being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Or, I could just as easily deem that killing for leisure is just as profitable for my purposes as being nice to others. You certainly could, but as a whole, we got to where we are over the course of human history because more people believed in not killing other human beings (at least those in their tribe/nation/whatever) than did believe it was OK. If you're asking how those of us who do not believe in a higher power still manage to believe in some form of "morality", that's an extremely complex question. Having done some studying of the well-known philosophers and philosophical positions over the course of human history, the concept of some form of absolute moral "right and wrong" is not completely uncommon, even in those who did not believe or did not preach the concept of a higher power. Your statement that the concept of a higher power is necessary for some form of moral compass reminds me of Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." For some people, having that compass is necessary to feel as though there is some absolute truth somewhere outside of simply our own intrinsic nature. Personally, I believe that even without the concept of God, humans would not have been able to succeed as a race without some degree of reliance on other people, so killing them or harming them would have also, at the end of the day, harmed one's own chance at survival. This intrinsic self-preservation motive may well be why we were able to evolve to the point of having civilized societies, as well as developing some concept of a higher being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members shane159 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.