Members Pitar Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. My Pop struggled with this each time the topic of anything metaphysical came up. He could not fathom that morality was not an exclusive ascription to intelligent design. Very brain washed, his generation, about such things. Don't hurt me and I won't hurt you. Help me and I'll help you. Do not be jealous of me and I won't... you get it. It's as simple as that. Pain is the greatest player in the creation of civility amongst men. That is the morality. It's really just the golden rule put into actual use and that much is innate in man. IOW, man can be clueless of morality and still understand quite capably that he does not wish to receive the pain he observes on another man. The uninjured man contributes what he can to the injured man, volunteered or requested, and the relationship developing from a prompt of pain sets in motion one example of a moral building block where no gods were involved. This the point in the story when believers will conjure up a god behind the stage curtain silently working the strings (morality) of the two marionettes I just described. If you still feel compelled to ascribe morality to a higher power then you are back to the real question about the extant of that higher power and not just morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pitar Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. My Pop struggled with this each time the topic of anything metaphysical came up. He could not fathom that morality was not an exclusive ascription to intelligent design. Very brain washed, his generation, about such things. Don't hurt me and I won't hurt you. Help me and I'll help you. Do not be jealous of me and I won't... you get it. It's as simple as that. Pain is the greatest player in the creation of civility amongst men. That is the morality. It's really just the golden rule put into actual use and that much is innate in man. IOW, man can be clueless of morality and still understand quite capably that he does not wish to receive the pain he observes on another man. The uninjured man contributes what he can to the injured man, volunteered or requested, and the relationship developing from a prompt of pain sets in motion one example of a moral building block where no gods were involved. This the point in the story when believers will conjure up a god behind the stage curtain silently working the strings (morality) of the two marionettes I just described. If you still feel compelled to ascribe morality to a higher power then you are back to the real question about the extant of that higher power and not just morality. 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 I completely agree they might go by something different, that was never a point of contention. So, if morality doesnt exist in a vacuum, then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water.Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? I don't think I get your question really. Yes, in a vacuum, outside of any social construct whatsoever (including redeye's point), I can kill you and you can kill me. 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 I completely agree they might go by something different, that was never a point of contention. So, if morality doesnt exist in a vacuum, then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water.Whos to say which is right or wrong absent any ultimate authority? I don't think I get your question really. Yes, in a vacuum, outside of any social construct whatsoever (including redeye's point), I can kill you and you can kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RiffDaemon Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Moral and religious bull{censored} aside, I'm pleased to learn that 'absent' is also a preposition. I can stop using "in the absence of" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RiffDaemon Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Moral and religious bull{censored} aside, I'm pleased to learn that 'absent' is also a preposition. I can stop using "in the absence of" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water. Yes. However, this whole thing's a bit of a red herring. You don't need absolute morality to think that's wrong, nor does such a thing exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge then youd agree that without any absolute morality, my decision to harm you is as equally permissible as your decision to drink water. Yes. However, this whole thing's a bit of a red herring. You don't need absolute morality to think that's wrong, nor does such a thing exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sah5150 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. Your premise that morality is not possible absent a higher power is flawed. Treating people as you would like to be treated doesn't require a higher power. It is common sense. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sah5150 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. 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? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. Your premise that morality is not possible absent a higher power is flawed. Treating people as you would like to be treated doesn't require a higher power. It is common sense. Steve 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 Phrophus I don't think I get your question really. Yes, in a vacuum, outside of any social construct whatsoever (including redeye's point), I can kill you and you can kill me. BINGO! We have a winner. 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 Phrophus I don't think I get your question really. Yes, in a vacuum, outside of any social construct whatsoever (including redeye's point), I can kill you and you can kill me. BINGO! We have a winner. 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 LynchProtoge You must have missed where I said outside any group or societal constraints.... I think I addressed that but probably in too many words. Again, absent any group or societal constraint, is there any reason a non believer should presume he cant do such a thing? Absent any group or societal constraint, there may not be a reason a non-believer should presume he can't just do whatever he desires. At the same time, even with group and societal constraints, many believers through history have done similar things, so IMO the absence of group and societal contraints would probably pan out similarly for religious and non-religious people. On the other hand, if there were babies available for this scenario, that would be part of a group and something that would result in a possible desirable or undesirable result which would likely give pause to any reasoning person to consider the consequences of. What knowledge and reasoning ability does this hypothetical person have? If the person is mentally unstable, getting rid of a crying and needy being may seem a benefit. If the person has the wisdom to perceive this child could grow up and be a help to the person, especially as the person eventually grows older and feeble, the person would probably not wish to harm the child but to actually consider it precious. And, of course, there would very likely be a bond of affection that would develop with any reasoning person. 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 LynchProtoge You must have missed where I said outside any group or societal constraints.... I think I addressed that but probably in too many words. Again, absent any group or societal constraint, is there any reason a non believer should presume he cant do such a thing? Absent any group or societal constraint, there may not be a reason a non-believer should presume he can't just do whatever he desires. At the same time, even with group and societal constraints, many believers through history have done similar things, so IMO the absence of group and societal contraints would probably pan out similarly for religious and non-religious people. On the other hand, if there were babies available for this scenario, that would be part of a group and something that would result in a possible desirable or undesirable result which would likely give pause to any reasoning person to consider the consequences of. What knowledge and reasoning ability does this hypothetical person have? If the person is mentally unstable, getting rid of a crying and needy being may seem a benefit. If the person has the wisdom to perceive this child could grow up and be a help to the person, especially as the person eventually grows older and feeble, the person would probably not wish to harm the child but to actually consider it precious. And, of course, there would very likely be a bond of affection that would develop with any reasoning person. 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 BINGO! We have a winner. So you were begging the question after all huh. 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 BINGO! We have a winner. So you were begging the question after all huh. 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 sah5150 Your premise that morality is not possible absent a higher power is flawed. Treating people as you would like to be treated doesn't require a higher power. It is common sense. Steve You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? 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 sah5150 Your premise that morality is not possible absent a higher power is flawed. Treating people as you would like to be treated doesn't require a higher power. It is common sense. Steve You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 morality...yadda yadda...how does it exist without religion...yadda yadda....people explain morality exists without religion...you say we didn't read.do you even clarity in writing/conveying thoughts brah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 morality...yadda yadda...how does it exist without religion...yadda yadda....people explain morality exists without religion...you say we didn't read.do you even clarity in writing/conveying thoughts brah? 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 You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? You asked a question to which you will accept only one answer, so you're either a troll or a bigot. Which is it? 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 You clearly didnt read, so your either just trying to join some dog pile or you are posting in ignorance. Which is it? You asked a question to which you will accept only one answer, so you're either a troll or a bigot. Which is it? 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 MadKeithV So you were begging the question after all huh. Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. 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 MadKeithV So you were begging the question after all huh. Yep. But what hasn't been talked about is that religion is a societal construct as well, so in a vacuum, the religious norms wouldn't prevent anything either. 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 BINGO! We have a winner. I just don't understand why you're questioning this. (A) It's mental masturbation...we do not live in a vacuum where there are no other considerations (B) it doesn't say anything about the difference between atheists and believers of any kind beyond the fact that the individual morality of one or another is shaped according to a different, albeit similar, set of rules © it does not say that atheists don't have morality. It only says that their morality is based on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.