Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
Morality is subjective. God wants us to try to be moral, however that morality is. The challenge being that we, as humans, need to understand others' moralities.
Morality exists without your God.
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
Morality is subjective. God wants us to try to be moral, however that morality is. The challenge being that we, as humans, need to understand others' moralities.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Pretty telling of your subconscious view of power.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
No idea, but I take that to show that French philosophers feel no need to speak in the same code.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
I'm not sexist, it's just all the Bible passages imagining it as male.
And worshipers a female. It is quite twisted and kinky in that way in parts.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
You can talk about what is right.
There doesn't have to be a God to make it wrong to run around shooting random people. That isn't immoral because a magic being in the sky said it is immoral, and that's even imagining a magic being in the sky that was consistent about it being immoral, instead of doing it himself, and encouraging his followers to do it to folks he considers "not chosen".
If there has to be a God for people to be moral beings, then what you are saying is, even the most innocent infant child is actually a worthless demon spawn, unworthy of precious life, assuming there was no God. You're also saying that if there was no God, there would be nothing wrong with stabbing a baby to death. After all, if we're all amoral beings without a God, then there's nothing wrong with killing another amoral being. You'd be doing the world a favor.
If morality is derived from the existence of an invisible, hypothetical being, who does not do or say anything, who cannot be touched or sensed by any of the five senses, who doesn't intervene the world in the slightest, then that is exactly the same as a universe in which he doesn't exist. Because the net effect is the same.
What you're saying is that the "belief" in such a being is what causes people to be moral. And I know for a fact that it is not true. Every single atheist, agnostic, and non-Christian can attest to the fact that not believing in Christ or the Christian God doesn't stop them from being moral human beings.
The belief does not cause morality. A person's rational mind does. Fairness, even-handedness, proportionality, and a fundamental understanding that other people are sentient, sensitive intelligent beings the same as yourself, that comes from the mind. It comes from a mature mind that understands basic social structure, and that even in the purest, harshest, coldest logical way, destroying society is less useful than preserving it, harming others is less valuable than cultivating relationships with them.
It's not a matter of the spirit, it's a matter of the mind. Plenty of folks who have been "touched" by the "spirit" have insisted on a higher morality, one that allows them to kill all the evil people who disbelieve. Those are minds who have not matured, no matter how overactive their imaginations.
That's why it's not a matter of needing a belief in God. There are lots of mature minds who don't, and behave morally, and lots of immature minds who believe in God and act like sadists.
The common denominator is not God, but the mind.
Indeed.
Just because you have a book that says that the magic invisible man says that homosexuals should be put to death, that doesn't make it moral to do so. Nor is it moral to tone it down and merely trash their reputations and decry them as amoral perverts, just for being homosexual. Nor is it moral to tone it down even further and simply think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as any other mature adult.
Whose morals are we using? The ones that say, even if it says in a very old book that homosexuals are offensive to God, it also says in that same book that cutting off your beard is just as offensive.
____________________
But let's compare apples to apples. It also says that you shouldn't lie down with your own sister or daughter in the Bible. But there is no campaign out there to decry the morality of incestuous couples. None.
None whatsoever.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/incest.html
It's not common, and I'm not comparing it to homosexuality as being morally okay. But I am saying that there are an innumerable amount of incestuous couplings which take place all across the world. There isn't a word spoken about it by these anti-gay activists. They don't care that according to the Bible, it's just as wrong. And that includes the happy version of the Bible which includes Jesus in it who is a kinder and gentler God than Jehovah.
There's one reason why there's such an aggressive campaign to ensure that homosexuals don't get the same rights as, let's say, two adults engaged in an incestuous relationship. The exact same level of Biblical sin, and still applies today for all Christians. But there will be plenty of churches out there who won't even ask any questions. They'll allow that kind of marriage.
The reason why homosexuality is being demonized so much, so disproportionately, as compared with let's say the sins of greed, gluttony, or being vicious to your fellow person, the reason is not because God said gay relationships are bad. That's not the reason.
That's the excuse.
That's one of the few parts of Leviticus that Christians can really rally around. It happens to match up with their own unsettling feelings they get around gay people. So they match their personal distaste for gay people and combine it with the desire to be seen as righteous.
It's as if it said in the Bible that it's perfectly okay to watch nakedness, in fact, God commanded you to. Watch porn? O-M-G, I LOVE to do that, and if I do it, I am also pleasing God. Therefore I'm not just indulging in my basest desires, I'm also being Holy at the same time.
The reason why folks are campaigning so hard against gay people's relationships, rights, and attacking gay people's character, is not because God said it was immoral. It's because they're trying to be seen as righteous while also indulging in the base desire to bully others, because it gives them pleasure to make others seem less decent than themselves.
It's that same base desire that people indulge when they talk **** about celebrities and politicians that they hate.
People crave to say hurtful things about other people, and see others (especially those in power, or have fame or money, or anything they don't have) get some sort of comeuppance.
That's not a Godly motivation. But the desire to make others seem terrible, while also make oneself seem better, is a base desire, and it is a desire that is shared by Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, you name it.
It's one of the ways humans can be real jerks sometimes. And being Christian doesn't make you immune from it.
_____________________________
Ask yourself why there's such a massive campaign against gay people being treated the same as others, but no such campaign for incest, or for straight couples engaging in oral sex or anal sex, which is also against the Bible.
The reason is because those folks are picking on gays and it makes them feel better about themselves. It's not because of God. And since there is no God, they can get away with it unless we call them out on it.
There's no reason why sexual sins aren't treated equally. Straight couples all across this nation commit Biblical sodomy. Nobody.... cares.... at.... all.
Why? Because those are straights we're talking about. It's much easier to pick on gays. Much more satisfying.
Bible-thumping schoolyard bullies are not good role models for how we should treat other people. Because their maturity level hasn't surpassed the third grade.
Utilitarian morality is just as bad. If I could murder someone and harvest their organs and save 10 lives, I will have committed an ethical action under utilitarian morality. It talks about what is the best outcome for the most people. Under such a system, watching 10 sick people die naturally would be immoral, instead I could murder someone and steal his organs, and save 10 lives for the price of one.
Murdering innocent people is wrong even if the intention is good. Even if I could construct a scenario where the outcome is mathematically "better".
I could murder a rich man, steal all his money, and give it to feed 100 starving people. That would be ethical, if our idea of ethics is whatever helps the most people.
You have to combine that idea with another idea, which is that certain actions are wrong regardless of the outcome.
Suppose I randomly fire a rifle into a crowd. The person I hit, happened to be a rapist. Does that make my action ethical or morally right?
If we believe that there's a God, and whatever a book says he said is therefore morally right, then we stop thinking.
If we believe that whatever helps the most people is right, then we stop thinking about anyone but the majority, and that allows people to trample individuals. The only thing stopping that is the idea that some things are objectively immoral and wrong, regardless of outcome, or the existence of an invisible person.
There was a German leader who built highways.
Not to Godwin my own thread, but the point is, just because the Bible contains a few things that any rational adult would consider rational sense, that doesn't mean the Bible is the source of that rational sense.
Just as, for example, the German people don't really have to thank Hitler for their highways. Because someone else could just as easily have built them, and decent road systems existed before Hitler. It's an inevitable progression of the art of building better road systems.
Folks who source the Bible for all their morality seem to forget, the Bible didn't always exist, and somehow humanity managed to survive without it, because those concepts of rational and good existed beforehand.
These are common concepts. They're not patented or copyrighted, they belong to everyone. Somehow folks have managed to convince others that without this Bible, which states the painfully obvious in some cases, and utter lunacy in others, we wouldn't know that it's not okay to punch a baby.
Again, morality exists without God, without the Bible. In fact, it exists in spite of those ideas floating around.
Moderator Action: Please use the Multiquote option in the future - Grisu
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
I'm just trying to disprove the notion that it's evil somehow. All philosophies should be studied and understood, the Torah, Bible and Quaran included.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Except when it changes, which it does within the Bible itself. Sometimes within the same book. God's positions on what is moral are not self-consistent, don't apply to him, don't apply to his followers, and are often in direct contradiction. When is it acceptable to kill another human being? Commandment says don't murder. Except, other parts of the Bible say that killing people is okay, even if you're not God, and I'm not talking about killing a guy who is running around killing people. I'm talking about wiping out indigenous populations.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Not all philosophies are worthy of study. If my philosophy is kill everyone who doesn't give me money, that's not really a philosophy of any note.
I approve of studying religion as a cultural and historical phenomenon, but there's not much philosophical merit to it due to the above criticisms I have posted. It's not a philosophy, it's do as the invisible man says, except when you feel like it.
Spoiler :
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
You don't have to agree with the philosophy, just try to understand and recognize the morals of others. If we all did that a lot of problems would be solved.
I imagine Plotinus is avoiding this thread just from reading the title, but I would dearly love to hear what he has to say about this!
AdamGM
Warlord
Askthepizzaguy, mocking a specific morality in no way defends your position that morality exists without God.
AdamGM
Warlord
The reason I brought up my hypothetical scenario where there are 2 people in the universe and they are the only beings in it, with polar opposite ideas on what is a good moral code, is this;
It was suggested to me that one persons opinion on morality would ultimately be better. However, obviously each person would see their own belief, and the outworkings that coincided with it, as better.
Why does one person get to think they may impose their own morality on anyone else if they believe it is only their opinion?
Similarly, if you believe there is no higher being in the universe, and everything is ultimately just an opinion, on what basis may you hold someone else to your standards of right and wrong?
Is it anything more than, "views in contrast to mine get in the way of what makes me (or group X) happy?"
It was suggested to me that one persons opinion on morality would ultimately be better. However, obviously each person would see their own belief, and the outworkings that coincided with it, as better.
Why does one person get to think they may impose their own morality on anyone else if they believe it is only their opinion?
Similarly, if you believe there is no higher being in the universe, and everything is ultimately just an opinion, on what basis may you hold someone else to your standards of right and wrong?
Is it anything more than, "views in contrast to mine get in the way of what makes me (or group X) happy?"
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Ah, c'mon, no culture that includes Judith Butler is entitled to accuse another of producing incomprehensible philosophy.
AdamGM
Warlord
Off topic, but you have some serious misunderstandings about the Christian faith.
You are obviously referring to some of the 'thorny' Old Testament passages. However, trying to claim that the OT was intended as a to-do list is very inaccurate and your contradictions are actually resolved in the Bible. You are welcome to PM me if you are interested
There are many volumes of books written on this subject, and if it were as obviously unresolved as you are claiming, people who otherwise believe they are following a life defined by love wouldn't hold to this particular worldview.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
Off topic, but you have some serious misunderstandings about the Christian faith.
You are obviously referring to some of the 'thorny' Old Testament passages. However, trying to claim that the OT was intended as a to-do list is very inaccurate and your contradictions are actually resolved in the Bible. You are welcome to PM me if you are interested
There are many volumes of books written on this subject, and if it were as obviously unresolved as you are claiming, people who otherwise believe they are following a life defined by love wouldn't hold to this particular worldview.
Welcome to OT. I've been saying that for a year now.
So morality exists with God so long as you edit out the questionable parts of his message?
It's more working out what his message is in the first place - which isn't as simple as 'the Bible says it, let's do that'.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I did address your scenario, but you ignored me. How is your scenario different when those two people claim opposing moralities supported by what they consider divine mandate?
And I also answered your second question. Morality isn't formed by someone's opinion, except for the arbitrary divine flavour, but it evolved from social interaction.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Honestly, if you're willing to throw out as philosophy including a deity as "not philosophy" philosophy is a small, obscure topic that's only got a century or two of pedigree, has severe trouble with intercommunication and organizing itself, and has only a handful of courses taught at most universities, if any.
Seems to me that it'd just be easier to say "philosophy is crap."
Similar threads
