Church people...

For pity's sake Alsharad, just cuz there may not be a god is not a reason to have no ethics. Look at all the ethical atheists, and there are many of them.
They dont need god to be good people, what the hell are you going on about?

 

Just because there are no abslutes when it comes to things like moral, beauty, etc...doesn't mean our culture (and others) haven't adopted some basics.

I think we can all agree that things like morals and beauty and so on are all subjective. In some cultures women stretch their necks, some cultures put big discs in thier lips and some pretty weird stuff. There have been cultures that practice sacrifice, even human sacrifice, your religion being one of them. Wherever you are born and raised is going to have major impact on your morals, values, religion, impression of beauty, etc...

Anyone that thinks otherwise has not experienced enough cultural diversity in their lifetime. A lot of American's suffer this, i feel, becuase we are so culturally isolated from the rest of the world.

 

You do not need God to be ethical. However, without some sort of universally absolute standard, no ethical construct is any better than any other. Sure, we have all known ethical atheists. The question is "why are they ethical?" Look at it this way, you can justify ethics however you choose, but without some sort of immutable standard, your ethics are no better (or worse) than mine. So, if I espouse murder, lying, and theft and you espouse self-sacrifice, honesty, and giving, we have different ethical contructs by which we live, but yours is no better (or worse) than mine. They are morally neutral in relationship to each other. As such, you can disagree, but you cannot presume to judge me by YOUR standards. To be fair, you have to judge me by my OWN standards. After all, you do not have the right to impress your moral standards on me, do you?

There are several theories out there that attempt to create a sufficient moral theory without resorting to the existence of God. They all have significant difficulties. The only one which is free from major difficulties is Divine Command Theory. Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, even Kant's Moral Imperatives, all fall apart in the face of real life and conscience.

 

Interesting you say that, because isn't the christian religion all about imposing a set of moral standards on people?

 

True, but as I stated, without absolutes, no set of adopted values is better than any other. For all intents and purposes, they are completely arbitrary.

That is a pretty strong statement. And no, I don't agree. Disagreement in moral standards does not at all imply that there ARE NO moral standards. If we work a difficult math problem and come to different answers, does that mean that there is no answer? No. Either one of us is wrong or we BOTH are, but that in no way implies that there is no answer. Therefore, the idea that disagreements on moral constructs implies that there are no moral absolutes is a false. It is entirely possible that there ARE moral absolutes and that one or both or all constructs are incorrect.

But has there ever been a culture which praised weakness? How about a culture that rewarded dishonesty or cowardice? There are some underlying moral principles that are held up in every culture (for example, I do not think that it has ever been acceptable for citizens to rape and murder each other with impunity... they can do that to citizens of other cultures maybe, but never their own).

Or maybe they just follow Cultural Relativism to its logical (absurd) conclusion and realize that though we may not know with absolute certainty what the moral absolutes are, we can be sure that they do exist. Now, WHY do they exist? They are certainly not the product of the physical universe, so either they are constructs within our own minds (in which case, they would not be absolute) or they original with an absolute being with moral authority (God).

No, it is more about showing people how much God loves them and then there is a change in their lives in which they wish to adhere to God's moral standards. Not so much "do this or else..." but more "if you love me you will act like it..." The moral commandments in Scripture are there for our edification, to point our wrongdoing, and to protect us.

Anyway, even if it is, if I believe that I have a right to impose my religion and you don't, then where does that leave us. If morality is subjective, then I not only can morally impose my beliefs... I am obligated to! You can disagree, but you can't simply say that I don't have a right to... I would have the right because would I believe that I do. You see the problem yet? You cannot say that any religion or organization is wrong to impose their beliefs. You can only say that it is your OPINION. If mine is different and disagrees, well... tough. I can do what I want, and you can try and stop me if you want, but you cannot reasonably say that either one of us is right or wrong (because that would simply be another opinion).

 

I swear you don't know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, harmful and helpful. It is clear as a bell to me, no matter the culture.
I would not judge you, your truth is for you alone, as is mine. I just know that in my world, whether there is Spirit or not, there is a difference between good and evil. To lend a hand is good, to steal is evil. What else is there to say?
If someone feels rape and murder are good, I say, not in my world.

 

Alsharad you would be a completely 'immoral' individual if God did not exist. You see no reason not to inhibit the happiness of others unless your God said "hey, thats not cool with me".

If there was not a Bible for you too extract these absolute morals, what source would you then be forced to draw them from? Efficiency.

I live by a very simple moral code. It is a code that allows complete freedom of involvement to any reasonable degree, it allows freedom, and at its core happiness. I will not do anything to another being that inhibits their happiness. And I come to this conclusion not because God instructed me, not because 'I' (solely) believe it is 'right'. I live by this code because it promotes the ability of one to live how they want to, to the extent to which it doesn't hinder another person's ability live how they want to.

You assume for some reason that humans cannot consciously make an assertion of morals. As if because there is no objective source it automatically invalidates them. Perhaps they are invalid to you, but not to the group that agreed upon them, as a microcosm, as a macrocasm that group is society. These morals are enforced through law. Of course there has to be levels of agreement. Actual agreement among real beings reguarding the subjective 'morality' among that group.

 

you my boy...are a legend


*tips hat*



i don't go to chirch. i used to go a lot and then i was in a choir and stuff that sang for sunday mass but i pray a lot at home instead. do the rosary from time to time. i don't think its benefited or not benefited me to be honest. i would probably have the same morals and be the same person if i did go to church if ye get me.

 

So what about defiling the dead? Is is okay to defile the dead by eating them? The ancient greeks said "Absolutely not!" where in other cultures it was considered abhorrent to NOT eat the dead. Now, if it is clear to you, which one is morally okay?

Truth is simply stating what is. If I speak what is of what or what is not of what is not, I speak truth. If I speak what is of what is not or what is not of what is, I do not speak truth. Truth corresponds to reality. It is not some mystical esoteric "thing." Truth is simply a quality of statement. If you say the sun is spherical and I say it is a cube, who speaks the truth? You do. Why? Because the sun IS spherical. So abandon this idea of "your truth" verus "my truth." Truth is either absolute or it is simply not true. If something is true, then it is true for everyone, not just you or me.

Then you are not living in the real world. In the real world, there are horrible people who DO enjoy horrific acts. Unless you espouse a worldview that includes absolute morals, you have no basis to condemn them because their worldview is no worse than yours.

That is one way, but there are others. Read Kant's Categorical Imperative or the different types of Utilitarianism.

Even if their happiness is a gross violation of you, your posessions or even your own moral code? Would you let a thief steal from you simply because it would make him happy? Would you defend yourself from an angry animal (they are another being and you being removed or dead would make them happy)? Do you think we should do away with the entire penal system? It inflicts a LOT of unhappiness.

Now we are coming to the meat of it. The presuppositions. You seem to think that there is something wrong with hindering someone's ability to live how they want. How do you justify your belief? Why is it important at all that someone live as they choose? Is there a limit to the freedom that is allowed? If not, why not? If there is a limit, wouldn't it be an absolute moral?

It doesn't invalidate them... but it makes them completely arbitrary. How many people does it take to determine a moral code? A thousand, a million, or just two? Just one? If that is the case, then why do the moral imperatives one million people outweigh the moral imperative of a small group? Take the KKK, they are a splinter faction with vastly different moral views than the majority of U.S. citizens. Can the culture of the U.S. tell the culture of the KKK that they are wrong or immoral? Can we judge them at all? Are we really prepared to put them on the same moral ground as, say, the Peace Corps? If cultural relativism is correct, then that is exactly what you are doing. Love is no better than hate, greed is no better than charity. And we cannot tell another culture what is right. Which means that we may disagree with agressive conquering of other nations, but we cannot say that it is wrong. It is just a differing cultural belief.

 

I suppose happiness is subjective. A broader word may be freedom.

Meh

I will attempt an answer when I am sober

 

So what about defiling the dead? Is is okay to defile the dead by eating them? The ancient greeks said "Absolutely not!" where in other cultures it was considered abhorrent to NOT eat the dead. Now, if it is clear to you, which one is morally okay? Alsharad

Morally, it is okay in some cultures, and not okay in ancient Greece, Alsharad.
That is as clear as I can make it. If you asked me, is it ethical to eat dead people, it is harder to answer that.

In my view, it is ethical only so long as the living relations say so, or if it is a matter of surviving starvation, like happened in the Andes after that jetliner crashed. BG13

Truth is simply stating what is. If I speak what is of what or what is not of what is not, I speak truth. If I speak what is of what is not or what is not of what is, I do not speak truth. Truth corresponds to reality. It is not some mystical esoteric "thing." Truth is simply a quality of statement. If you say the sun is spherical and I say it is a cube, who speaks the truth? You do. Why? Because the sun IS spherical. So abandon this idea of "your truth" verus "my truth." Truth is either absolute or it is simply not true. If something is true, then it is true for everyone, not just you or me. Alsharad

If someone says to you and me, how old are you. We both answer differently, yet both speak the truth. So you abandon your idea that you speak truth and I do not. Truth may be absolute, but it is also subjective. I am here, you are there, never to know each others reality, and I cannot say I am where you are, so if asked 'Where are you?' I would answer differently than you, and my answer and yours would be equally true.
I will not abandon my views until I hear something I agree with more. Your post does not fit that category. If something is true for you, it is most definitely NOT true for everyone. BG13

Quote:
I just know that in my world, whether there is Spirit or not, there is a difference between good and evil. To lend a hand is good, to steal is evil. What else is there to say?
If someone feels rape and murder are good, I say, not in my world.
Then you are not living in the real world. In the real world, there are horrible people who DO enjoy horrific acts. Unless you espouse a worldview that includes absolute morals, you have no basis to condemn them because their worldview is no worse than yours. Alsharad

I was not clear, I guess. I meant to say that I do have absolute ethical beliefs. To repeat myself, there is a difference between good and evil.
In my view, horrific acts are evil, period. No matter the culture. That is what I meant. BG13

 

ok well i mainly just read page1/2 and browsed through 3..

ignorance is the main problem in this thread..
a lot from thumontico
and a bit from a few people (but thats kinda ok..)

thumontico- theres no point in coming into a christian forum saying that theyre stupid and their beliefs are invalid, especially with nothing to back it up except saying its a artificial concept.. i also was "christian" for 4years.. and after being told it was all truth i believed it.. near the end of that 4years i just slowly started to think for myself and have looked more into it and now personally see no reason to see it as truth. but thats my personal opinion. theres no reason to be completely ignorant and try to force youre belief as fact. you bitch at christians, for pushing their views, yet you do the same.. and with just as much proof.. im agnostic but closer to atheist than theist, but i never deny the fact that there could be a god or gods. or some sort of force.. or whatever. ignorance isnt bliss.

and to the people defending against him.. i guess some of the comments could be taken as ignorant, but this is the CHRISTIAN forum.. so it is fine to say that god is real, jesus is the messiah, the bible is gods word and prayer has many advantages. i may not believe them exactly, but this is your forum, your beliefs, so i dont see why you should try to justify them anytime an ignorant prick like thumontico tries to stir up shit.. if it was the other way around and it was a christian stirring in the atheist/agnostic forum then it would be different i guess...

half of that probaly didnt make sense...

and to the original question..
i think following the 10 commandments are more important in christianty than going to church.. although isnt church worship? maybe god likes worshipers not followers

 

Explain my 'ignorance' or pick a new adjective.

My understanding of the purpose of a 'forum' is to express one's opinions. My intention was not to 'stir up shit' (as you put it) for the sake of stirring up shit. I want to make people think. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, I am stating my opinion. Whether someone has the skepticism to decipher their belief from mine is none of my concern.

Nor have I 'bitched' at a Christian because they try to force there views upon me. Personally, I enjoy when people try to 'convert' me because it iniates a substantive conversation.

Never have I claimed out right that someone is 'stupid'. Your ability interpret things (incorrectly) and assume my meaning, and your ability to make things up based off from no actuality is clearly well refined. I believe that the Christian belief (and most other beliefs) is erroneous (at least on the core issues), however, I do not think these people stupid because of there belief. I think that they are convinced easily. But this gullabilty cannot not be placed simply on them, the majority of the world shares this gullability making the false true, and reason unnecessary.

In short, atropine is a self righteous pussy. Do not claim that my supposedly epistemologically unfounded beliefs are invalid, while the people I was speaking to vigorously defend their completely epistemologically unfounded beliefs. Atleast mine are based off from probability.

I do not recall even the topic of this conversation or at what point I commented, but I am sure that if my beliefs were stated it was because it was related to the topic or the point I was making. I will not surrender my belief because I am in the Christianity forum and abide by there expectations to a degree that is degradative to my integrity. If you feel that these people that claim faith to there God will be swayed necessarily by me, you have not witnessed their resolve, and are severly mistaken.

 

Take the KKK, they are a splinter faction with vastly different moral views than the majority of U.S. citizens. Can the culture of the U.S. tell the culture of the KKK that they are wrong or immoral? Can we judge them at all? Are we really prepared to put them on the same moral ground as, say, the Peace Corps? If cultural relativism is correct, then that is exactly what you are doing. Love is no better than hate, greed is no better than charity. And we cannot tell another culture what is right. Which means that we may disagree with agressive conquering of other nations, but we cannot say that it is wrong. It is just a differing cultural belief.
Originally Posted by Alsharad

It sounds, Alsharad, as though you are beginning to grasp the subjectivity of morals, which are culturally decided societal norms. Therefore, they are often not logical, and sometimes unethical.
Ethics, on the other hand, are supposed to apply to all humanity.
__________________

 

You've lost me here. At first, it sounded like your morality was based on a transvaluation of values, you called it "subjective valuation," or something like that. But now it looks like your switching to a liberal, bourgeois, liberal ethical system. You should know very well that the two are incompatable. So am I just grossly misinterpretting this, or what?

So you're the Superman, eh? I really don't think so. You say that your morality doesn't interfere with the happiness of others, but you consciously aim to regulate their moral code. If all subjective valuation is equall, then how can you claim to be in such a priviledged position?

 

Your reasons seem arbitrary (or based on arbitrary assumptions i.e. the respect for the dead is not as important as survival). Why do you choose these positions over opposite ones (like saying it is NEVER okay or it is ALWAYS okay)?

Ahh... I see your problem. You are equivocating and eliminating context. The question "How old are you?" is a statement which depends entirely on context. The important context is the person to whom the question is presented. The word "you" isn't a universal word like "black" or "round." Its subject changes with world around it. If someone says to you, "How old are you?" they might just as easily said "How old is BlackGuardXIII?" Gramatically, they are identical statements when the question is adressed to you. It is simply a gramatical idea that we address you as "you" rather than in the third person. So, the question is really "How old is BlackGuardXIII?" If you say one age and I say another, then either one of us is wrong or we both are.
You are using a nuance of the way we address each other to make your argument. The fact is "How old are you?" or "where are you?" are statements completely devoid of meaning without context. Once they are given context, the context determines the truth or falsity of the response. "Where are you?" means nothing if asked to no one. If you do ask it, the word "you" is simply a substitute for referring to them in the third person. However, you and I are not the same "you" in the questions you provide as evidence. There is clearly a right and a wrong answer when you remove the second person referals and replace them with the third person contextual information.
Now, there are questions like "what is the best flavor of ice cream?" which have no truth value.
So, the question is "are morals more like ice-cream or more like a difficult math problem?"

But how do you justify those beliefs? And what constitutes a horrific act?

 

Hammer I speak only for myself. All I ask of others is that they create their own values.

 

But what are your values, and why do you value creating values?

 

1. Why do I choose this over always, or never.....because the act of eating a person, in the real world, Alsharad, is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context. If I was starving, and had a dead body beside me, but I was isolated and could not get back to civilization, I would then decide for myself what was right. If I had a cellphone, and the dead person's family asked me to not eat their relative, I would starve. If they said go ahead, I would. Clear enough for you?
2. You call it equivocation, I call it reality. You are there. I am here. You are not here. We will forever experience differing realities, and we will base our beliefs on our own life experiences. That is why I will not say to you, you are wrong. I cannot know that. I stand by my statement, my truths are not yours. Morals are like ice cream to me. Ethics are like colours, to use your example.
3. I feel no need or desire to justify my beliefs. My friends do not need justification, and my enemies won't accept them anyway. I believe based on my 40 years of life. And, if you feel that the theoretical concept of there being no difference between good and evil applies in your life, that is for you to decide. In my life, there is a clear and distinct difference that a five year old child could tell you about.

 

just a few examples of youre ignorance..

according to you all christians are selfrighteous, immoral, irrational and attempt to "spread their guilt" to everyone around them.

again, noone can give proof that there is an effect, but care to give proof that there isnt?

again, care to proof that it is an artificial concept? care to proof that the goal is impossible? if not then your claims are completely ignorant. i believe the same but atleast im openminded enough to know that they could be true. saying that there are false and theres no other way around it is just as bad as being a evangelist walking the streets telling people how wrong their lives are.

a lot of what you say is very wellthought and very valid.. but the posts in this thread just came off as utterly ignorant..

was it you that said the only real christian was jesus? ...