NationStates Jolt Archive

You are not interpreting me correctly, I suspect.

Empathy is ONLY 'standard' in those who empathise. There is nothing 'objective' about empathy... indeed, 'subjectivity' is basically the essence of empathy.

I seem to observe a world of subjective 'consensus' moralities... most of which are influenced, sooner or later, by empathy... for the good or for the bad.

But, even those 'empathic' moralities are still (almost by definition) subjective.

How exaclty is empathy subjective? How can a 'consensus' morality be influenced for the worse by empathizing?

Actually, what exactly do you mean by empathy? Our definitions may be different.

in the parable he DID enter heaven "through me"

no one keeps all god's laws. the parable is about what laws are more important. it contends that good works are more important than faith alone.

I must agree with Ashmoria on this one. From a biblical point of view, its quite clear that good works can not get you into heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith--and this not from yourselves it is the gift of God...not by works so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
And as for the 'Christian' in the story, sure, he could have been only paying lip service and not actually be a born-again-Christian, which would explain his being an asshole when he finds he was caught out and can't get in.

The parable itself is a good reminder to be nice to others, no matter what religious background you come from, but is utterly pointless as a means to make a point about Christianity and how to get to Heaven from that stand point.

It is precisely because of differring interpertations of those terms that the accepted morals of societies are different. Truly, the consciences of all sane human beings do conform to that statement (I suppose I might add, "unless in self-defense"). Slaveowners, for example, believed in this principle even though they owned slaves. Why? Because they also believed that their slaves did fall under the 'others' category (compare with people who eat meat vs. PETA today). At the very least, the principle applies to one's peers; for example, Islamic jihadists would probably have little qualms about killing evil American satans but would not harm each other.

Nevertheless, the principle holds true for all societies. What of criminals, you may ask? They are either insane, or they realize what they are doing is wrong but they are tempted beyond caring enough not to do it (by greed or desperation). EVERYone in good mental health has a conscience. Try it out; if you harm someone without cause or steal their possessions, or whatever, you will feel guilty. Don't you?

Well, since you effectively establish your criteria for 'good mental health' as 'a subsection of the population that has a conscience'...., of course, by YOUR definition everyone in 'good mental health' has a conscience.

However, that has nothing to do with the subjectivity/objectivity of morality.

Let us look, for a moment, at the hungry man who steals a loaf of bread. There is a possibility that this fellow is SO much feeling a victim of his oppressive society, that he feels NO moral qualm or conscience pang for appropriating bread. It is not HIS fault... he would work if he could, he would pay if he could, but he has been 'screwed' by his society/community.

His moral compass is under different influences to those of his neighbours... and his 'moral code' is different... subjectively.

You seem to be arguing that slaveholders felt pangs of conscience for keeping slaves? While I don't disagree that there would have been SOME who did... it seems unlikely that we would have had several THOUSANDS of years of slaveholding societies... if the general consensus hadn't been fairly 'pro-slavery'.... at least, among those HOLDING slaves.

I'm not sure how you think all of this ties in to 'objective morality'?

How exaclty is empathy subjective?


Empathy is subjective, because it is the mechanism by which one individual 'identifies with' or 'comes to understand' the position of another individual (or group).

Thus, the empathic individual is experiencing something PURELY subjective.... an appreciation of the 'subjective' perceptions of the other individual.

How can a 'consensus' morality be influenced for the worse by empathizing?


Not that hard really. It was the 'dark side' of empathy, if you like, that was the tool Hitler used at rallies. You carefully explain to people WHY their lives are crappy, how other's feel, how the speaker himself feels - and you encourage the audience member to 'feel your pain'.

Germany followed Hitler (at least, at first) because they believed it was the RIGHT thing to do... their 'moral compass' was skewed by empathy with the Third Reich agenda.


Actually, what exactly do you mean by empathy? Our definitions may be different.

Pretty much what I stated a short time ago: "Empathy is... the mechanism by which one individual 'identifies with' or 'comes to understand' the position of another individual (or group)".

*snip*
He turned to the Atheist and brought him through the gates. The other man tried to follow, but the gates slammed shut, and then disappeared. The man was left completely alone, even by God.
That's not a parable. It does not demonstrate a lesson to be learned, but is merely judgemental against the Born-Again Christian.

I'd imagine so, yes.

Especially since the bible being 'published' has been a fairly recent event.

But, examining archeological data... there were ecords of Mesopotamian civilisations with 'moral' codes, while the Hebrews were still wandering around the desert...ahh, but wern't those "moral" codes baised off of Mesopotamian Religion (not just chrisitanity, but Religion in General.)



Depends how you read that... the Atheist was always 'true to god'... but he never 'believed in him'.however, according to Christian Belief, you need to Believe in HIM as well as do good deeds. thus he (the athiest) still wouldn't get into heaven.

You can claim that morality MUST centre around religion, but I think you'd find it hard to prove it to be so.can you provide one civilization that has a moral code (not Laws) that is not baised on or originated from any form of Religion?

however, according to Christian Belief, you need to Believe in HIM as well as do good deeds. thus he (the athiest) still wouldn't get into heaven.
Good thing god isn't a Christian.

(Which is, perhaps, the moral of the story.)

i don't know if the point will ever be taken by those who don't want to, but it certainly brought a tear of joy to my eye that even someone atempting to make it in the context of 'christian' perceptions can 'get' and understand it.

two people have died at the same time, one who thinks he knows all the answers and one who has refused to pretend to believe the baseless and illogical answers which were the only kind he had ever been given.

before them stands no gate and no one to greet them, only a landscape of wierdcolors and alien forms. the fanatic believes himself in hell because there are no gold paved streets, no mansions, and no evidence of a king.

the athiest instead, perceives this as a place he's never seen, about which he knows nothing, but that it is a place and we are both here.

the people they meet are all very 'strainge' and 'nonhuman' looking, some twisted and hideous, at least in the fanatic's perception. to the athiest they appear merely odd.

the fanatic runs in fear from these 'demons', falls over a cliff, and cries out in agony and pain. little realizing that everything he sees and feels is a product of his own mind and the fears he has been taught and accepted as a means to manipulate others.

his companion thus incapacitated, the athiest asks one of these strainge and perhaps in some way frightning biengs, if it is true there is no god.

he is told, no this is not entirely correct. in one sense we are all gods, even you. in another there is indeed one, much greater then ourselve, whome even to us remains unseen.

about which the simple honest trueth is that none of us know anything, other then that, as in material life, it must wish us no harm, else none of us would likely ever have existed.

did it create, or in some way cause to be created, all of this, all of everything? the athiest asks

this too we do not honestly know, however much in our tangable lives we may have enjoyed pretending to.

=^^=
.../\...

Good thing god isn't a Christian.

(Which is, perhaps, the moral of the story.)
well, my God is a Christian God. don't know about the religion you follow. so I really cannot say.

and My God keeps his promises and his word. Not like the God in the Story.

ahh, but wern't those "moral" codes baised off of Mesopotamian Religion (not just chrisitanity, but Religion in General.)


It's somewhat hard to know, isn't it? Since we don't know how 'organised' the religion was at many points...

But - the way I look at it - I have a moral code, which has nothing to do with my religion - because I'm an Atheist.

Therefore, since I have met other people who can make the same claim - I don't find it HARD to believe that Mesopotamian Atheists had 'moral codes' that were unconnected to Mesopotamian religion.

One can fairly safely assume, then - that BEFORE the Mesopotamian peoples had 'organised religions', they were as 'Atheists'.

Thus - it is fairly logical to assume that even in Mesopotamia - moral codes COULD, and likely DID, flourish LONG before the canonisation of any given faith.


The important factor, to the topic, however - is that 'god' of the Christian church, is proved irrelevent to morality, by the simple factor that morality exists in isolation FROM said 'god'... and predates the 'religion' which is 'organised' in His name.


however, according to Christian Belief, you need to Believe in HIM as well as do good deeds. thus he (the athiest) still wouldn't get into heaven.


I wouldn't be so sure. Clearly the Atheist and the Christian were BROUGHT there BY God.... the Atheist CANNOT have gotten there on his own belief, and the Christian can't FORCE his way into heaven.

But, an omnipotent God could easily bring both of them there... and, surely, it is up to Him (not you) whether he allows the Atheist through 'on a technicality', once the Atheist is there?


can you provide one civilization that has a moral code (not Laws) that is not baised on or originated from any form of Religion?

The question is meaningless.

For centuries, the Celts had moral codes, but no 'gods'.... but they DID have 'fairies'. Now, they didn't WORSHIP the fair folk, but they did fear them, and beleived them to have power and influence.

Thus - one COULD argue that the Celts had 'religion'...

I suppose the simple answer is that there are many Atheists who have 'no gods', and who do not base their morality on a religion. Now, I'm not sure we usually consider Atheists as 'a civilisation'.... but that is EXACTLY why the question is meaningless.

At SOME point in the evolution of EVERY civilisation, EVERY civilisation has had SOME form of religion. They have all ALSO had fairy folk (if you look hard enough). They have all ALSO had forms of undead, and methods used to communicate with / avoid / placate them. They have all, ALSO, been more primative at some point.... so you COULD argue that moral codes stem directly from being culturally un-evolved.... since ALL cultures have been through that phase....

well, my God is a Christian God. don't know about the religion you follow. so I really cannot say.

and My God keeps his promises and his word. Not like the God in the Story.

How is your god a 'christian' god? Surely he existed before Christianity?

Indeed... if he's anyone's god... wouldn't he be a Hebrew god?

(Although, of course, since so much of the Old Testament material is stolen from the Babylonians... I guess you COULD argue that, if anything, 'he' is a Babylonian god....)

Regarding 'keeping his word':

Exodus 8:27 "We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us".

Jeremiah 7:22 "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices":

As nice an idea this parable is, it's laughably inconsistent with the bible. I dont think you're talking about the same God.

You know, you may have a point...but I personally like the God of the parable a lot better than the one in the bible. He's rather a power tripping ass, probably depicted that way by men who were trying to control people through fear.

How is your god a 'christian' god? Surely he existed before Christianity?

Indeed... if he's anyone's god... wouldn't he be a Hebrew god?

(Although, of course, since so much of the Old Testament material is stolen from the Babylonians... I guess you COULD argue that, if anything, 'he' is a Babylonian god....)

Regarding 'keeping his word':

Exodus 8:27 "We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us".

Jeremiah 7:22 "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices":Keep reading... go on... :D

Keep reading... go on... :D

Keep reading...... what, exactly?

well, my God is a Christian God. don't know about the religion you follow. so I really cannot say.

and My God keeps his promises and his word. Not like the God in the Story.
Maybe no god made those promises and people just put words in its mouth?

It's somewhat hard to know, isn't it? Since we don't know how 'organised' the religion was at many points...but many people say Religion has no place in the forming of Morals. so they must be sure that somewhere someone formed morals without religion.

But - the way I look at it - I have a moral code, which has nothing to do with my religion - because I'm an Atheist.and where did your Moral code get it's basis from... your parents and society? and where did that come from? I bet, you can trace it back far enough to some wise man in a cave saying that it's behavoir that the "great Spirit in the Sky" wants us to follow... in other words, Religion.

Therefore, since I have met other people who can make the same claim - I don't find it HARD to believe that Mesopotamian Atheists had 'moral codes' that were unconnected to Mesopotamian religion.ahh... but can you Prove it?

One can fairly safely assume, then - that BEFORE the Mesopotamian peoples had 'organised religions', they were as 'Atheists'.and One can also Safely assume that Mesopotamia was formed into a society because of Religion. We can also assume that there were no Athiest in Mesopotamian society. We can assume alot of things, that don't make it true.

Thus - it is fairly logical to assume that even in Mesopotamia - moral codes COULD, and likely DID, flourish LONG before the canonisation of any given faith.all basied on Assumption. nice.


The important factor, to the topic, however - is that 'god' of the Christian church, is proved irrelevent to morality, by the simple factor that morality exists in isolation FROM said 'god'... and predates the 'religion' which is 'organised' in His name.and some Morals then we would consider Immoral now. And some morals now would've been considered Immoral then.


I wouldn't be so sure. Clearly the Atheist and the Christian were BROUGHT there BY God.... the Atheist CANNOT have gotten there on his own belief, and the Christian can't FORCE his way into heaven.

But, an omnipotent God could easily bring both of them there... and, surely, it is up to Him (not you) whether he allows the Atheist through 'on a technicality', once the Atheist is there?In the Bible, all will stand before God and will be judged. now, 2 points from the Parable. The Athiest who believes in God is not an Athiest. Crest Falls as said that he meant God being in his [Athiest] heart is the Good that the Athiest did. that is directly against what is taught in the bible. The other point is that the Athiest found God after he died. now if the parable ended with the Athiest waking up in the hospital... then that would be different.



The question is meaningless.

For centuries, the Celts had moral codes, but no 'gods'.... but they DID have 'fairies'. Now, they didn't WORSHIP the fair folk, but they did fear them, and beleived them to have power and influence.

Thus - one COULD argue that the Celts had 'religion'...

I suppose the simple answer is that there are many Atheists who have 'no gods', and who do not base their morality on a religion. Now, I'm not sure we usually consider Atheists as 'a civilisation'.... but that is EXACTLY why the question is meaningless.

At SOME point in the evolution of EVERY civilisation, EVERY civilisation has had SOME form of religion. They have all ALSO had fairy folk (if you look hard enough). They have all ALSO had forms of undead, and methods used to communicate with / avoid / placate them. They have all, ALSO, been more primative at some point.... so you COULD argue that moral codes stem directly from being culturally un-evolved.... since ALL cultures have been through that phase....and that is what I am saying. While others are arguing that Morals come from Christian Living, I am saying it comes from Religion. Morals have their grounding in Religion... not just Chrisianity, but Religion in general. Society filters it, and adopts/rejects it in time, Travellers take their morals and others see it, and in time perhaps Adopt it. Athiests may not ascribe to any Religion but their moral codes (Usually passed down from parents to children) that they adopted got their start as a Religious Law.

Maybe no god made those promises and people just put words in its mouth?
think about what's being argued and you might realize that doesn't make sense.

Keep reading...... what, exactly?
Keep reading... then you'll find the points I'm arguing about. and why the Parable is wrong.

it's in the bible. keep reading.

Keep reading... then you'll find the points I'm arguing about. and why the Parable is wrong.

it's in the bible. keep reading.

I would like to point out here that the bible wasn't actually written by God. In fact, the only piece of it that is specifically claimed to be the word of God is the ten commandments. I am still of the opinion that the God portrayed by the bible is an ass. It is impossible to say what happens after death before you die, but I choose to believe the parable is closer to the truth because I want to think that someone that created the universe wouldn't be a sadistic freak.

think about what's being argued and you might realize that doesn't make sense.
How does it not make sense? The bible was written by men who would have had plenty of opportunity to add whatever they wanted, surely promising heaven to believers could have been added in by these men, rather than suggested by the deity.

How does it not make sense? The bible was written by men who would have had plenty of opportunity to add whatever they wanted, surely promising heaven to believers could have been added in by these men, rather than suggested by the deity.

Exactly, religion as it stands is a tool for those in power to control the masses. Since we are using Christianity as our basis for comparison, his message was - to paraphrase Bill and Ted - "Be excellent to each other" and that was it. That was his whole message. The parable stated that even though the athiest did not follow God with his mind, he followed God's desires with his heart, and was forgiven not being a believer. The Christian was cold and judgemental. He was self serving and believed himself better than his fellow man. In short, he was everything God wants us not to be. The parable makes perfect sense.

Nice first post, welcome to the forum.

Oh, and congratulations on not using any annoying gun smilies, far too many people do so on their first post.:)
Now, now, the post is still young. I would venture to say this is a more likely post to inspire gun smilies ... at least by the end.

And I think that's funney because I never pictured Jesus as being an asshole.)

Anyway...
Try Revelation.

he "Found" God after he died. thus he broke one of the important tenants. "The Way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ."


Wrong. You're breaking the 9th Commandment, in a fashion.
It actually says something else. You're quoting a bastardized version from a previous altered text.
And just because it's important to you as a philosophy doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY an important "tenant".

And if you're going to be devout, at least get your source material correct (as correct as possible, given ... :( )

"I am the Way, The Truth, and the Light. No man may enter Heaven except through Me."

And now, the correction to the "Talking Point" version:

John 14:6:

KJV (which predates NIV and Living)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Living
Jesus told him, "I am the Way - yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one can get to the Father except by means of me.
(interesting - get to the father? :sniper: )

NRSV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

So whatcha shootin' for here? They do indeed mean different things.
Probably political and CERTAINLY *not* inerrant.

i don't know if the point will ever be taken by those who don't want to, but it certainly brought a tear of joy to my eye that even someone atempting to make it in the context of 'christian' perceptions can 'get' and understand it.

two people have died at the same time, one who thinks he knows all the answers and one who has refused to pretend to believe the baseless and illogical answers which were the only kind he had ever been given.

before them stands no gate and no one to greet them, only a landscape of wierdcolors and alien forms. the fanatic believes himself in hell because there are no gold paved streets, no mansions, and no evidence of a king.

the athiest instead, perceives this as a place he's never seen, about which he knows nothing, but that it is a place and we are both here.

the people they meet are all very 'strainge' and 'nonhuman' looking, some twisted and hideous, at least in the fanatic's perception. to the athiest they appear merely odd.

the fanatic runs in fear from these 'demons', falls over a cliff, and cries out in agony and pain. little realizing that everything he sees and feels is a product of his own mind and the fears he has been taught and accepted as a means to manipulate others.

his companion thus incapacitated, the athiest asks one of these strainge and perhaps in some way frightning biengs, if it is true there is no god.

he is told, no this is not entirely correct. in one sense we are all gods, even you. in another there is indeed one, much greater then ourselve, whome even to us remains unseen.

about which the simple honest trueth is that none of us know anything, other then that, as in material life, it must wish us no harm, else none of us would likely ever have existed.

did it create, or in some way cause to be created, all of this, all of everything? the athiest asks

this too we do not honestly know, however much in our tangable lives we may have enjoyed pretending to.

=^^=
.../\...
I like this story much better than the original post :) although the message is different.

but many people say Religion has no place in the forming of Morals. so they must be sure that somewhere someone formed morals without religion.


Either that, or they have observed that people WITH morals, don't always 'have' religions.


and where did your Moral code get it's basis from... your parents and society? and where did that come from? I bet, you can trace it back far enough to some wise man in a cave saying that it's behavoir that the "great Spirit in the Sky" wants us to follow... in other words, Religion.


I encountered some aspects of my morality from my culture, sure. But, I actually disagree with a fair few 'cultural' morals, and have, instead, morals that reflect more logical, more pragmatic or more empathic values.

You 'bet' that you can find god at the start, because you EXPECT to find god at the start... you are not accepting that religion might NOT have even existed for the first 'people'... because you think you 'know' otherwise.


ahh... but can you Prove it?


No more than you can disprove it.


and One can also Safely assume that Mesopotamia was formed into a society because of Religion. We can also assume that there were no Athiest in Mesopotamian society. We can assume alot of things, that don't make it true.


How is that a safe assumption? The Mesopotamian religions 'evolved' over a period of time, and the 'orgainsed' religion shows no evidence of PREDATING the start of the civilisation.


all basied on Assumption. nice.


Nice, in what way? A chain of deductive reasoning IS logical... even if YOU don't agree with the first assumption.

Of course, the 'result' of that reasoning might ONLY be logical if that assumption is held to be true.

It is often a mistake to think one's OWN assumptions are somehow 'better' than that premise.


and some Morals then we would consider Immoral now. And some morals now would've been considered Immoral then.


This is true.

So, you agree there are NO objective morals, then?


In the Bible, all will stand before God and will be judged. now, 2 points from the Parable. The Athiest who believes in God is not an Athiest. Crest Falls as said that he meant God being in his [Athiest] heart is the Good that the Athiest did. that is directly against what is taught in the bible. The other point is that the Athiest found God after he died. now if the parable ended with the Athiest waking up in the hospital... then that would be different.


The Atheist in the story did not believe in God. People keep saying that, here... but it isn't in the story you are arguing against.

The Atheist did good things. The Atheist served a higher purpose. In the story, God is saying that THAT was the Atheist 'knowing him, in his heart'.

But, he didn't 'believe'.... he didn't 'know him in his head'.


The other point you keep missing... and I think I (if no one else) have pointed out three or four times, now:

The Atheist didn't "Find God", when he died. He and the Christian are BROUGHT before God.

Or, do you claim that God cannot move an Atheist?

Or, that he cannot CHOOSE to forgive him, once he has shown him the 'truth'?


and that is what I am saying. While others are arguing that Morals come from Christian Living, I am saying it comes from Religion. Morals have their grounding in Religion... not just Chrisianity, but Religion in general. Society filters it, and adopts/rejects it in time, Travellers take their morals and others see it, and in time perhaps Adopt it. Athiests may not ascribe to any Religion but their moral codes (Usually passed down from parents to children) that they adopted got their start as a Religious Law.

You keep SAYING morals are grounded in religion, but you have no way to prove it... and the morality of Atheists, and non-religious cultures, to argue against you.

Do Buddhists have morality? Did Communist Russia have morality? Do Atheists have morality?

It makes just as much sense as 'be good because some imaginary person in the sky says you should'. I'm sorry, but the Bible did not corner the market on 'what is good'. You can be good without ever reading it. And you can be a disgusting and cruel human even if you do read it. I'm not particularly confused about my life, or my actions, or whether I do good or not. Yet I reject religion, I reject the notion of a higher power, and I reject the Bible as anything but an interesting story.

I dont think you understand me. I understand completely that you can be good without reading a Bible but think of it like this. Without a God, or other external benchmark, then all current morality is is majority opinion. Majority opinion of itself has no legitamacy in regards to its content, the only support it has is that it is held to be true by the majority. It could be canabalism or the killing of the second born child of every family and it would be 'right' just because everyone held that opinion.

I dont think you understand me. I understand completely that you can be good without reading a Bible but think of it like this. Without a God, or other external benchmark, then all current morality is is majority opinion. Majority opinion of itself has no legitamacy in regards to its content, the only support it has is that it is held to be true by the majority. It could be canabalism or the killing of the second born child of every family and it would be 'right' just because everyone held that opinion.
Which is exactly why morality is subjective

Either that, or they have observed that people WITH morals, don't always 'have' religions.which comes back to the Question of Where did their morals come from?

I encountered some aspects of my morality from my culture, sure. But, I actually disagree with a fair few 'cultural' morals, and have, instead, morals that reflect more logical, more pragmatic or more empathic values.like?

alot of people disagree with Cultural Morals, never said they were univerally accepted, but where did the start of the morals you have now, come from? which do you value more, Logical? Pragmatic? or Empathic?


You 'bet' that you can find god at the start, because you EXPECT to find god at the start... you are not accepting that religion might NOT have even existed for the first 'people'... because you think you 'know' otherwise.see alot of 'Mights' in there. again, can you give me a civilization that did not have any form of Religion? from Gods to Fairies to witches and witchcraft?

No more than you can disprove it.that Mesopotaian's had a religion? simple. http://www.angelfire.com/pa/WoundedDove/mesopotamian.html
http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/assyrbabyl-faq.html
http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/whymeso.htm
Alot more links, almost all historical text state that the Temple was the center of the village.

now, can you show proof of the types of Morals from Athiests that have no grounding in Religion?


How is that a safe assumption? The Mesopotamian religions 'evolved' over a period of time, and the 'orgainsed' religion shows no evidence of PREDATING the start of the civilisation.To requote you... You 'bet' that you cannot find "god" at the start, because you EXPECT NOT to find "god" at the start... you are not accepting that religion might have even existed for the first 'people'... because you think you 'know' otherwise.

Nice, in what way? A chain of deductive reasoning IS logical... even if YOU don't agree with the first assumption.

Of course, the 'result' of that reasoning might ONLY be logical if that assumption is held to be true.

It is often a mistake to think one's OWN assumptions are somehow 'better' than that premise.nope, Never thought my assumptions are better, but you apparently do.

This is true.

So, you agree there are NO objective morals, then?never said there were. Society filters and alters morals to fit Society's needs and wants. basically, as more people accept it, then Majoriy rules. but the start of Morals are found in Religion.

The Atheist in the story did not believe in God. People keep saying that, here... but it isn't in the story you are arguing against.

The Atheist did good things. The Atheist served a higher purpose. In the story, God is saying that THAT was the Atheist 'knowing him, in his heart'.

But, he didn't 'believe'.... he didn't 'know him in his head'.untill he stood face to face with God and he believed.

Doing Good deeds is fine, but what is also needed is Faith. now people can say it's not a Christian God, then why use a "Born Again Christian" if not to show that Faith without deed is also empty. Why not just state a "Faithful" then it can be any "god".




The other point you keep missing... and I think I (if no one else) have pointed out three or four times, now:

The Atheist didn't "Find God", when he died. He and the Christian are BROUGHT before God.

Or, do you claim that God cannot move an Atheist?

Or, that he cannot CHOOSE to forgive him, once he has shown him the 'truth'? Let's look at the parable again.

An Atheist and a Born-again Christian stand at the gates of heaven after a fatal car crash. God appears, and speaks first to the Atheist.
"Well, my son, it seems we have drifted apart from each other in recent years."
The Atheist looks down. "I was wrong, it seems. I didn't believe in you, and now it's obvious that you exist."[many faithful come to this point without the face to face meeting.]
God smiled. "Perhaps with your mind you rejected me,[not ignorance but a Rejection. not you did not know me, but you rejected me. He willingly turned away from God.] but in your heart you knew me, just as you did my work by your hand. You have been a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin. So tell me, though my message was too diluted and my messengers were insufficient to convince you of the truth in your mortal life, do you accept now your flaws, that you are unworthy of heaven?" now we have God saying, even tho you REJECTED ME, because you did good work, everythings’ ok.
The Atheist looked up. "Now that I've seen you, and know what perfection is, yes. I am not worthy. I could never be."
"And do you accept that I have died as penance for your sins?"
"Yes. And God..."
"yes, my child?"
A tear ran down the former Atheist's cheek. "I'm sorry." now the Athiest finds God and realizes he’s wrong.

Let’s run a parallel story. A mass murder, responsible for 35 greusome deaths is caught, and brought before the judge. His opening statement is
“You Honor, I finally realize what I did was wrong. I am a monster, the horror that I inflicted upon society can never be forgiven. I should be locked away forever, or at least put to death.”
The Judge looks down upon the man and says,
“Since you now see the error’s of your ways, I will allow you to go free. Live life to the benefit of society. Case Dismissed.”
At the outcry of the Surviving members, the Judge looks to them and says,
“this man has seen the errors of his ways, to punish him now is to now put a law abiding citizen behind bars, no, now he must go out and make good his new found sight and let the memory of what he has done now haunt him for the rest of his life.”

Same thing. The atheist did not believe in God. In fact, he REJECTED him. It took a Face-To-Face meeting at the Gates of Heaven to make him believe. Just as the guilty man had to stand infront of the Judge to realize the error of his ways. The fact that both the Athiest and this Murderer broke some laws, but asked and received forgiveness and leniency is similar. But which one would you scream about?

You keep SAYING morals are grounded in religion, but you have no way to prove it... and the morality of Atheists, and non-religious cultures, to argue against you.

Do Buddhists have morality? Did Communist Russia have morality? Do Atheists have morality?is Buddism a Religion? (Yes it is) Did Communist Russia have No Religion of their own? (yes they did) and you still have to name a Civilization that did not have Religion at their starting. Find one moral (not Law) that isn’t reflected in any religion that has been around for over 100 years.

Wrong. You're breaking the 9th Commandment, in a fashion.
It actually says something else. You're quoting a bastardized version from a previous altered text.
And just because it's important to you as a philosophy doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY an important "tenant".

And if you're going to be devout, at least get your source material correct (as correct as possible, given ... :( )



And now, the correction to the "Talking Point" version:

John 14:6:

KJV (which predates NIV and Living)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Living
Jesus told him, "I am the Way - yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one can get to the Father except by means of me.
(interesting - get to the father? :sniper: )

NRSV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

So whatcha shootin' for here? They do indeed mean different things.
Probably political and CERTAINLY *not* inerrant.same gist tho. the only way to heaven is Faith.

and of course, Faith without deeds is empty so yes, you need both faith and live a life honoring God.

I dont think you understand me. I understand completely that you can be good without reading a Bible but think of it like this. Without a God, or other external benchmark, then all current morality is is majority opinion. Majority opinion of itself has no legitamacy in regards to its content, the only support it has is that it is held to be true by the majority. It could be canabalism or the killing of the second born child of every family and it would be 'right' just because everyone held that opinion.

And?

If that is how it is, the that is how it is....

To the OP who thought that you can be saved somehow after death, look here

Can You Be Saved After Death?
from Let's Talk
with Jim Burns

Can You Be Saved After Death?
My friends and I have a hard question we can't find the answer to. Can some one get saved after they die or go to hell? What does the Bible say?


It would be nice if there were an opportunity to change your mind in hell, but the Bible gives no indication that this will be possible. Hebrews 9:27 says we are all "destined to die once, and after that to face judgment."

Another passage that seems to shut the door to a "second chance" is a parable Jesus told in Luke 16:19-31. The parable was about a rich man who died and went to hell. In his agony, the rich man looked up to heaven and cried out for mercy. In response to his cries, the man was told a chasm separated heaven and hell—a chasm that could never be crossed.

As hard as it is to hear, eternal separation from God is the punishment for people who don't accept Christ as Lord and Savior. But please understand that it's not God's desire for anyone to spend eternity in hell. As it says in 2 Peter 3:9, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

So my encouragement to you is to concentrate on the present. I can't tell you what will happen between death and judgment, but I can tell you that God desires for each one of us to experience his love and grace right here, right now.

And?

If that is how it is, the that is how it is....

Are you serious!

So there are no objective morals. If thats the case, there is nothing morally objectable to me killing you now. You have your morals that say there is, but someone else might have their morals saying they dont. And before you bring up "live and let live" thats just a moral like any other. If you belive what you are saying it has no more validitiy by content than any other moral. No more validity than say Hitlers ideas.

Morality is objective if God exists. So I guess you subjectionalists better hope that He doesn't. That pretty much summarizes the argument.

The OP is pretty much loco insane. There is absolutely no documented religious text in Christianity that says following your own moral compass gets you anywhere.

To the OP who thought that you can be saved somehow after death, look here

Jim Burns is not god.

Therefore, anything he says is opinion... mortal and fallible.

Morality is objective if God exists. So I guess you subjectionalists better hope that He doesn't. That pretty much summarizes the argument.

The OP is pretty much loco insane. There is absolutely no documented religious text in Christianity that says following your own moral compass gets you anywhere.

And, that is not what the original post said, either....

Are you serious!

So there are no objective morals. If thats the case, there is nothing morally objectable to me killing you now. You have your morals that say there is, but someone else might have their morals saying they dont. And before you bring up "live and let live" thats just a moral like any other. If you belive what you are saying it has no more validitiy by content than any other moral. No more validity than say Hitlers ideas.

I still don't see your point.

You appear to be saying that there MUST be objective morals... because you don't like the idea that there might not be.

The Bible talks of Joshua killing men, women, children... taking slaves, raping the women, running the victims over with farm equipment.

Hitler is a sunday-school teacher, by comparison.

Are you serious!

So there are no objective morals. If thats the case, there is nothing morally objectable to me killing you now. You have your morals that say there is, but someone else might have their morals saying they dont. And before you bring up "live and let live" thats just a moral like any other. If you belive what you are saying it has no more validitiy by content than any other moral. No more validity than say Hitlers ideas.No, I think G'n'I was criticizing your way of lumping anything that had nothing to do with religious morality into the "subjective morality" pot.

To the OP who thought that you can be saved somehow after death, look here
Another passage that seems to shut the door to a "second chance" is a parable Jesus told in Luke 16:19-31. The parable was about a rich man who died and went to hell. In his agony, the rich man looked up to heaven and cried out for mercy. In response to his cries, the man was told a chasm separated heaven and hell—a chasm that could never be crossed.

As hard as it is to hear, eternal separation from God is the punishment for people who don't accept Christ as Lord and Savior. But please understand that it's not God's desire for anyone to spend eternity in hell. As it says in 2 Peter 3:9, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
Another one who doesn't know what a 'parable' is, and reads it as a narrative.

which comes back to the Question of Where did their morals come from?Wouldn't you think that since it's a reality they can exist witout religion, morality can be separate from religion? Hence it wouldn't matter where they came from; they'd be subjective and wouldn't necessarily mean anything to you anyway...
that Mesopotaian's had a religion? simple. I think he meant that they had religion before they became 'civilized.'
To requote you... You 'bet' that you cannot find "god" at the start, because you EXPECT NOT to find "god" at the start... you are not accepting that religion might have even existed for the first 'people'... because you think you 'know' otherwise.nope, Never thought my assumptions are better, but you apparently do.Then...why do you bother arguing? You obviously think your assumptions are better because you feel the need to convince other people they are, when you cannot reasonably convince them. Just saying, 'Believe me!' is not quite enough, I'm afraid.
Let’s run a parallel story. A mass murder, responsible for 35 greusome deaths is caught, and brought before the judge. His opening statement is
“You Honor, I finally realize what I did was wrong. I am a monster, the horror that I inflicted upon society can never be forgiven. I should be locked away forever, or at least put to death.”
The Judge looks down upon the man and says,
“Since you now see the error’s of your ways, I will allow you to go free. Live life to the benefit of society. Case Dismissed.”
At the outcry of the Surviving members, the Judge looks to them and says,
“this man has seen the errors of his ways, to punish him now is to now put a law abiding citizen behind bars, no, now he must go out and make good his new found sight and let the memory of what he has done now haunt him for the rest of his life.”

Same thing. The atheist did not believe in God. In fact, he REJECTED him. It took a Face-To-Face meeting at the Gates of Heaven to make him believe. Just as the guilty man had to stand infront of the Judge to realize the error of his ways. The fact that both the Athiest and this Murderer broke some laws, but asked and received forgiveness and leniency is similar. But which one would you scream about?You know....mass murder is not the same as rejecting God. In the story, the only major thing he did wrong was the rejection. He did not kill other people, he did not make their lives miserable. In fact, he tried to make them better. The only person possibly affected by this would be God, and he is supposedly the all-loving type, right? Why would the jury care if the guy didn't believe the judge existed? It might make the judge a little twerked off, but doesn't hurt anyone else in the least... I think the case ought to be thrown out as frivolous. It certaintly doesn't warrant a eternal stay in hell.

You know....mass murder is not the same as rejecting God. In the story, the only major thing he did wrong was the rejection. He did not kill other people, he did not make their lives miserable. In fact, he tried to make them better. The only person possibly affected by this would be God, and he is supposedly the all-loving type, right? Why would the jury care if the guy didn't believe the judge existed? It might make the judge a little twerked off, but doesn't hurt anyone else in the least... I think the case ought to be thrown out as frivolous. It certaintly doesn't warrant a eternal stay in hell.change the story then... make it a person who stole 35 million dollars from various people including you and your family (at gunpoint/breaking and entering) and say gave it all to charity. does that make what he did right? or exscuse the fact that he broke the law?

change the story then... make it a person who stole 35 million dollars from various people including you and your family (at gunpoint/breaking and entering) and say gave it all to charity. does that make what he did right? or exscuse the fact that he broke the law?The point was that the guy did not do a single major bad thing to any other human. He just doesn't believe the judge exists. The judge is offended for God knows what reason (ehehe), and he condemns the man to eternity in hell.

The man didn't break the law, because there was no clear and obvious law in the first place. It is incredibly vague - just look at all the denominations of christian, and there are people who don't even believe that. You make a law to be understood -in one way-, remember?

I'm not sure why he would much care anyway - there's quite a lot of other people to pick from who do believe he exists.

I still don't see your point.

You appear to be saying that there MUST be objective morals... because you don't like the idea that there might not be.

The Bible talks of Joshua killing men, women, children... taking slaves, raping the women, running the victims over with farm equipment.

Hitler is a sunday-school teacher, by comparison.

Joshua was a man, not God

If you want to talk about his actions, do it in another thread because your sidelining the discussion. If morals are subjective, then if my morality said to me that it was right to come and kill you now I could do it, and none of you would have any legiamacy in stopping me. You might say "G&I's morality says he should live" but maybe my morality says that mine is superior to all others. Dont you get it. If morality is subjective, then no one has any rights. The US constitution, the bill of rights, all piceces of subjecitve moral ideas. It would be no diffrent if Bush just went and tore them up. If morality is subjective, every action in the world means nothing. Do you seriously believe that?

Joshua was a man, not God

If you want to talk about his actions, do it in another thread because your sidelining the discussion. If morals are subjective, then if my morality said to me that it was right to come and kill you now I could do it, and none of you would have any legiamacy in stopping me. You might say "G&I's morality says he should live" but maybe my morality says that mine is superior to all others. Dont you get it. If morality is subjective, then no one has any rights. The US constitution, the bill of rights, all piceces of subjecitve moral ideas. It would be no diffrent if Bush just went and tore them up. If morality is subjective, every action in the world means nothing. Do you seriously believe that?It means something in the context of the society. You are deviant in your example, and your actions wouldn't be tolerated.

Yes, our 'rights' are only defended by our willingness to protect them from others who may have a different idea of what our 'rights' should be. You can say someone is 'entitled' a right, but that doesn't give it to them in reality.

Let’s run a parallel story. A mass murder, responsible for 35 greusome deaths is caught, and brought before the judge. His opening statement is
“You Honor, I finally realize what I did was wrong. I am a monster, the horror that I inflicted upon society can never be forgiven. I should be locked away forever, or at least put to death.”
The Judge looks down upon the man and says,
“Since you now see the error’s of your ways, I will allow you to go free. Live life to the benefit of society. Case Dismissed.”
At the outcry of the Surviving members, the Judge looks to them and says,
“this man has seen the errors of his ways, to punish him now is to now put a law abiding citizen behind bars, no, now he must go out and make good his new found sight and let the memory of what he has done now haunt him for the rest of his life.”


C.S.Lewis had this analogy for the curent situation, and how we got there

Once upon a time, there was a country called Earth. This country was perfect, all run by a man named God and everything was fine and well. Then an invading power called sin, lead by a man named Saten invaded the country. Some of the citizens of the country followed sin, and became sinners and colaberated with the new regieme. In retrun they prosepred and enjoyed themselves. However some rebelled and remained true to the old way of living, and followed God. God then sent a special agent into the country to form a resistance movement. This resistance movement grew and grew, long after the agent had returened to God. All this time God was preparing to invade occupied Earth, and when the time was right, he would. But he wanted as many people as possible to come to the resitiance movement, and leave sin. When he does invade of course, those who collaberated will have to be brought to justice.

It means something in the context of the society. You are deviant in your example, and your actions wouldn't be tolerated.

Yes, our 'rights' are only defended by our willingness to protect them from others who may have a different idea of what our 'rights' should be. You can say someone is 'entitled' a right, but that doesn't give it to them in reality.

Your missing my point. Your idea of a deviant has no signifience in moral legitamacy. If morality is subjective, I am just as normal as you are. The only thing giving society any authority is that the majority of people agree with it. You may think you have rights, but if thats just subjective morality then your rights could mean nothing to me and you would have no right to force me to conform to your views if morallity is subjective. Morallity simply cannot be subjective. If it was, the world would be in chaos (even more than it is now)

Your missing my point. Your idea of a deviant has no signifience in moral legitamacy. If morality is subjective, I am just as normal as you are. The only thing giving society any authority is that the majority of people agree with it. You may think you have rights, but if thats just subjective morality then your rights could mean nothing to me and you would have no right to force me to conform to your views if morallity is subjective. Morallity simply cannot be subjective. If it was, the world would be in chaos (even more than it is now)I don't think I did. You seem to think that because everyone can have a different idea of morality, they cannot agree on certain things they want the same - which is what society's morals are. They are certain things that almost everyone in the society wants enforced. And they will be enforced. Should you murder someone, you will be brought to justice by a court of your peers - a random, general sample of the morality of society.

I don't think I did. You seem to think that because everyone can have a different idea of morality, they cannot agree on certain things they want the same - which is what society's morals are. They are certain things that almost everyone in the society wants enforced. And they will be enforced. Should you murder someone, you will be brought to justice by a court of your peers.

Firstly, I am not actually sugesting I have the right to kill people. What I am suggesting is that I would have that right if morality was subjective. However I believe morality is objective (thank goodness). Society does indeed have morals. But these morals are no more legitamate (if morality is subjective) than an individual's morals. The only diffrence is that the majority of people believe in them. But if you believe that morality is subjective then a court has no right to pass judgement on someone, because its morality it uses to decide that what someone has done is wrong is no more legitamate than his morality in believeing its right. The only way a court has legitamacy is if there are objective morals

Joshua was a man, not God

If you want to talk about his actions, do it in another thread because your sidelining the discussion. If morals are subjective, then if my morality said to me that it was right to come and kill you now I could do it, and none of you would have any legiamacy in stopping me. You might say "G&I's morality says he should live" but maybe my morality says that mine is superior to all others. Dont you get it. If morality is subjective, then no one has any rights. The US constitution, the bill of rights, all piceces of subjecitve moral ideas. It would be no diffrent if Bush just went and tore them up. If morality is subjective, every action in the world means nothing. Do you seriously believe that?
morality is oblviously subjective e.g. youer morals are different from mine. also the morals of people from all over the world are oncve again different. this may or may not mean that every action in the world means nothing but to me that seems rediculous

C.S.Lewis had this analogy for the curent situation, and how we got there

Once upon a time, there was a country called Earth. This country was perfect, all run by a man named God and everything was fine and well. Then an invading power called sin, lead by a man named Saten invaded the country. Some of the citizens of the country followed sin, and became sinners and colaberated with the new regieme. In retrun they prosepred and enjoyed themselves. However some rebelled and remained true to the old way of living, and followed God. God then sent a special agent into the country to form a resistance movement. This resistance movement grew and grew, long after the agent had returened to God. All this time God was preparing to invade occupied Earth, and when the time was right, he would. But he wanted as many people as possible to come to the resitiance movement, and leave sin. When he does invade of course, those who collaberated will have to be brought to justice.
so where does that leave atheists who have not sinned except to reject god?

so where does that leave atheists who have not sinned except to reject god?

No one has not sinned. Granted that story doesnt explain that very well.

Firstly, I am not actually sugesting I have the right to kill people. I didn't think so. :)

What I am suggesting is that I would have that right if morality was subjective.You see, that 'right' is taken away by society on the basis of the collective morality. I don't think you saw my edit:

by a court of your peers - a random, general sample of the morality of society.

It doesn't matter what those people believe in individually, because there is more than one of them, and they were chosen randomly for the very reason of avoiding a single mindset.
However I believe morality is objective (thank goodness). Society does indeed have morals. But these morals are no more legitamate (if morality is subjective) than an individual's morals. The only diffrence is that the majority of people believe in them. But if you believe that morality is subjective then a court has no right to pass judgement on someone, because its morality it uses to decide that what someone has done is wrong is no more legitamate than his morality in believeing its right. The only way a court has legitamacy is if there are objective moralsThey're no more legitimate in and of themselves, no. However, we do decide the morality of our society and the limits of individual freedom. People who deviate from that violate it at their own risk.

I didn't think so. :)

You see, that 'right' is taken away by society on the basis of the collective morality. I don't think you saw my edit:

by a court of your peers - a random, general sample of the morality of society.

They're no more legitimate in and of themselves, no. However, we do decide the morality of our society and the limits of individual freedom. People who deviate from that violate it at their own risk.

Your still missing the point. I agree with you. Society does decide the morality of people and the limits to individaul freedom, that is not what I am discussing. What I am saying is, is that that set of moralities cannot be said to mean anything if morality is subjective. If morality is truely subjective, then Adolf Hitler is as good a person as Mother Teressa.

Um, that's what I said, yes?

They're no more legitimate in and of themselves, no.

Adolf Hitler, however, violated the morals of many, if not most, of the world. He paid for it.

The only way to get a 'true' objective morality is to believe in a diety, but since no actual concrete evidence exists (or even can exist - read some of the Confessions of St. Augustine) for God's existence, you can't have it for sure. Uncertainty - it's a fact of life, unfortunately.

Interestingly enough, since no evidence exists for God exists, your objective morality is indeed subjective. Just something to think about.

Are you serious!

So there are no objective morals. If thats the case, there is nothing morally objectable to me killing you now.
Why does having 'subjective morals' equate to having no morals in your mind?

Why does having 'subjective morals' equate to having no morals in your mind?
nicely said

One of the basic questions in this thread is where do morals come from? Well they obviously do not come from our lower level animal instincts. Perhaps it comes from society? I beg to differ, I think it comes as a decision based on one's own cognitive thinking. Being able to recognize yourself as an individual. Why? Simply put the major changes in morals have been brought on by small groups of individuals who think for themselves. Jesus told the Pharasies that they were wrong, granted it took time for his ideals to take hold but eventually they did. Just as Buddah turned down his family riches to live a life of self purification. Just as the radical abolitionists inspired the North to go to war to destroy slavery once and for all. Morals are simply man's desire to better mankind and/or himself. Humans are communal, that is they live in groups, and are healthier when they do so. Being predominantely introverted is not seen as healthy for us. Humans seek to better the community in which they live because they feel that they are part of the group, and will rise and fall with it. Now my question for you is how did cognitive thinking develop without some kind of intervention? How did humans learn to think for bettering the whole rather than themselves?

One of the basic questions in this thread is where do morals come from? Well they obviously do not come from our lower level animal instincts. Perhaps it comes from society? I beg to differ, I think it comes as a decision based on one's own cognitive thinking. Being able to recognize yourself as an individual. Why? Simply put the major changes in morals have been brought on by small groups of individuals who think for themselves. Jesus told the Pharasies that they were wrong, granted it took time for his ideals to take hold but eventually they did. Just as Buddah turned down his family riches to live a life of self purification. Just as the radical abolitionists inspired the North to go to war to destroy slavery once and for all. Morals are simply man's desire to better mankind and/or himself. Humans are communal, that is they live in groups, and are healthier when they do so. Being predominantely introverted is not seen as healthy for us. Humans seek to better the community in which they live because they feel that they are part of the group, and will rise and fall with it. Now my question for you is how did cognitive thinking develop without some kind of intervention? How did humans learn to think for bettering the whole rather than themselves?
Take a look at Ape societies.

Take a look at Ape societies. Indeed but do smaller groups of apes invoke massive changes in how apes use tools? I would've thought that they would be able to create fire by now...

Joshua was a man, not God


Were his actions 'objectively moral'?

Also - maybe worth noting... Joshua did all that lovely stuff, on the orders of his 'god'.


If you want to talk about his actions, do it in another thread because your sidelining the discussion. If morals are subjective, then if my morality said to me that it was right to come and kill you now I could do it, and none of you would have any legiamacy in stopping me. You might say "G&I's morality says he should live" but maybe my morality says that mine is superior to all others. Dont you get it. If morality is subjective, then no one has any rights. The US constitution, the bill of rights, all piceces of subjecitve moral ideas. It would be no diffrent if Bush just went and tore them up. If morality is subjective, every action in the world means nothing. Do you seriously believe that?

Your 'morality' might say it would be okay to kill me... but that doesn't mean I would have 'no legitimacy' in stopping you...

Indeed, our society says your action would be immoral... so the general consensus must agree with my view, rather than yours.

Why do you equate lack of OBJECTIVE morality with nihilism? My entire life isn't determined by what someone writes in a book, or by what a consensus of opinion decides.

I pity your faith, if it is so shallow that it cannot accept a world with as small a hiccup as 'no OBJECTIVE morality'.

Your still missing the point. I agree with you. Society does decide the morality of people and the limits to individaul freedom, that is not what I am discussing. What I am saying is, is that that set of moralities cannot be said to mean anything if morality is subjective. If morality is truely subjective, then Adolf Hitler is as good a person as Mother Teressa.

False conclusion.... if it is COLLECTIVELY subjective, it might be judged that Mother Theresa's good works are far more 'morally acceptable' than Hitler's eugenic visions.

Why does having 'subjective morals' equate to having no morals in your mind?

This is gold.

No one has not sinned. Granted that story doesnt explain that very well.
I haven't sinned.

I guess this means I won't have to convert on my death bed ..... RESULT

Short and sweet: The Bible is all we got.
Yes, NOT the Torah, the Talmud, the Sefer Yetzirah, the Shi'ish Qabbalah, the Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Quran, the Bhagavhad Gita OR the Book of Mormon.
:rolleyes:

same gist tho. the only way to heaven is Faith.

and of course, Faith without deeds is empty so yes, you need both faith and live a life honoring God.
I wouldn't disagree with your second line, but upon thinking about it, your implication of gist in the first line isn't correct from a non-believer's point of view.

No one has not sinned. Granted that story doesnt explain that very well.
Not even "Jesus", who patently and very clearly took "god"'s name (or his ... how conceited!)in vain on the cross.

Each religion has a concept of God that has been developed by the men who formed the cult.

Spirituality is an individual practice.

All of us are equal in our worth on earth. All of us have an impact on the lives we touch.

Trashing anyone becuase they have a different opinion benefits no one.

Each religion has a concept of God that has been developed by the men who formed the cult.

Spirituality is an individual practice.

All of us are equal in our worth on earth. All of us have an impact on the lives we touch.

Trashing anyone becuase they have a different opinion benefits no one.
Good post. *bows*
Although my opinion might differ on your last line ... ;)

Let’s run a parallel story. A mass murder, responsible for 35 greusome deaths is caught, and brought before the judge. His opening statement is
“You Honor, I finally realize what I did was wrong. I am a monster, the horror that I inflicted upon society can never be forgiven. I should be locked away forever, or at least put to death.”
The Judge looks down upon the man and says,
“Since you now see the error’s of your ways, I will allow you to go free. Live life to the benefit of society. Case Dismissed.”
At the outcry of the Surviving members, the Judge looks to them and says,
“this man has seen the errors of his ways, to punish him now is to now put a law abiding citizen behind bars, no, now he must go out and make good his new found sight and let the memory of what he has done now haunt him for the rest of his life.”

Same thing. The atheist did not believe in God. In fact, he REJECTED him. It took a Face-To-Face meeting at the Gates of Heaven to make him believe. Just as the guilty man had to stand infront of the Judge to realize the error of his ways. The fact that both the Athiest and this Murderer broke some laws, but asked and received forgiveness and leniency is similar. But which one would you scream about?

However, this is erroneous, being that the Born again and the Atheist have committed sins which amount to the same thing in God's eyes. Both were given the chance to repent. The only difference in this parralel is that one of the faithful would be a murderer who repents before the court case.

The only real problem with the entire story is that it assumes you can be 'changed' and feel remorse AFTER death.

I've seen no evidence that life isn't required as a prerequisite of change and growth and remorse. IF life is required, the atheist can't feel remorse and the born-again can't feel anger/resentment/self-justification.

I think this story can only make sense if it takes place before actual death of the participants.

The only real problem with the entire story is that it assumes you can be 'changed' and feel remorse AFTER death.

I've seen no evidence that life isn't required as a prerequisite of change and growth and remorse. IF life is required, the atheist can't feel remorse and the born-again can't feel anger/resentment/self-justification.

I think this story can only make sense if it takes place before actual death of the participants.
:fluffle:

:fluffle:

ewww, don't do that. :p

ewww, don't do that. :p
Aw, c'mon ... word is bond.
Word.

Why does having 'subjective morals' equate to having no morals in your mind?

Its not no morals. Its diffrent morals. For example, there could be a very strange morality in someones mind that means that they must kill every third person they see. Now given that eveyone's morality is subjective, your morality in saying that is wrong is no better than theirs to say its right. The only diffrence may be that you have more people who agree with you. But that doesnt make you any more 'right' than the other person. So can you really accept that.

Um, that's what I said, yes?

They're no more legitimate in and of themselves, no.

Adolf Hitler, however, violated the morals of many, if not most, of the world. He paid for it.

But his morals would be just as good as mother Tereasa's. IE killing people and seeking wealth and political power are (in a world with subjective morals) no diffrent to helping those worse off than you and giving your life to the needy. Why? Well look at it this way. Subjective morallity is essentialy an opinion of what is right and wrong for people to do. Its like taste in music. You cannot prove that Starsailor is better than Iron Madien. In the same way, if morality is subjective, you cannot prove that Hitlers morals (of themselves) are worse than mother Teressa's morals. What you can prove is that more or less people liked them, but majority opinion doesnt count for anything. Just because a majority of people believe something, doesnt make it right.

Your 'morality' might say it would be okay to kill me... but that doesn't mean I would have 'no legitimacy' in stopping you...

Yes it would. If morallity is subjective then your morality to defend yourself is worth no more than someone else's morality to kill you. If morality is subjective, it means everyones morality, no matter how strange, has equal standing.


Indeed, our society says your action would be immoral... so the general consensus must agree with my view, rather than yours.

All that general consensous means is that more people agree with you. That doensnt make it any more right. If morality is based on the number of people who believe it, then let me ask you this. If Hitler had won the second world war, would it be right to kill every non aryan in the world.

False conclusion.... if it is COLLECTIVELY subjective, it might be judged that Mother Theresa's good works are far more 'morally acceptable' than Hitler's eugenic visions.

If many people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing

Lots of people believing something does not change the somethings nature. For example, if the American constitution had said that when the third sunday of a month the second born of every family will be decapitated, and everyone agreed, would that make that "morrally aceptable"

If many people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing

Lots of people believing something does not change the somethings nature. For example, if the American constitution had said that when the third sunday of a month the second born of every family will be decapitated, and everyone agreed, would that make that "morrally aceptable"
Within the society yes.
Not by my views no but for the society it would be morally acceptable.

So what is it you want us to debate/talk about?

I believe the poster wants you top debate whether spoken faith is more powerful than faith in deeds. As was pointed out in the debates, Bush spoke about faith all of the time. Kerry said that faith is shown in works, for faith without works is uselsss. Even an atheist can be forgiven provided they do God's work. The prostelizing born again claimed to know God, but did not follow what God taught. There are plenty of you out there that talk a good "God Game," but use your forked tongues to hate in the next breathe.

The only real problem with the entire story is that it assumes you can be 'changed' and feel remorse AFTER death.

I've seen no evidence that life isn't required as a prerequisite of change and growth and remorse. IF life is required, the atheist can't feel remorse and the born-again can't feel anger/resentment/self-justification.

I think this story can only make sense if it takes place before actual death of the participants.

The last sentence might be true.... but it sets limits on what God 'can do'... does it not?

Yes it would. If morallity is subjective then your morality to defend yourself is worth no more than someone else's morality to kill you. If morality is subjective, it means everyones morality, no matter how strange, has equal standing.


First: You aren't even sticking to your own premise, here.... if your 'morality' to kill me, is no less 'valid' than my 'morality' to defend myself.... then my defence is EXACTLY as 'legitimate' as your offense... by your own argument.

And, if the majority agrees with me... then my 'morality' gains the added 'legitimacy' of being supportable, and enforcable.

Second: Your 'example' is ridiculous, anyway. If I see you actually physically threatening my life, 'morality' is not going to affect whether or not I remove you as a threat. My self-preservation instincts will outrank any 'morality' you may feel justifies or denies my action.


All that general consensous means is that more people agree with you. That doensnt make it any more right. If morality is based on the number of people who believe it, then let me ask you this. If Hitler had won the second world war, would it be right to kill every non aryan in the world.

By your own example... the answer must be "no"... since non-Aryans far outnumber Aryans.

But - if you are asking if it becomes 'morally acceptable" to do bad things, just because the majority agrees, then the answer (for the CULTURE) is a resounding 'yes'. However, even within that culture, there may be those wtih a personal morality far removed from that perspective.

If many people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing

Lots of people believing something does not change the somethings nature. For example, if the American constitution had said that when the third sunday of a month the second born of every family will be decapitated, and everyone agreed, would that make that "morrally aceptable"

1) Are you saying that Mother Therasas' good works were a foolish thing?

2) What is your obsession with killing and hurting people?

3) If the majority agrees that a thing is morally acceptable, then that thing IS morally acceptable, to the MAJORITY, IN that culture.


You are taking the concept of individual morality, and cultural morality - and you are trying to compare it to an empirical morality.

There IS no empirical morality... so your attempts are always going to fail.

story sounds a whole lot like a greatly abreviated version of the NARNIA series to me

2) What is your obsession with killing and hurting people?
Its fairly obvious that this person uses decapitation and murder as examples because they are held as obviosuly and totally wrong by most moral standards. It is clear that killing someone is wrong, s/he uses killing as an example because it explicitly shows how any moral system judging that as OK is flawed.

3) If the majority agrees that a thing is morally acceptable, then that thing IS morally acceptable, to the MAJORITY, IN that culture.

So you're saying that if something is considered moral to someone, then it is considered moral to that person. Why include anything about culture or majorities?


You are taking the concept of individual morality, and cultural morality - and you are trying to compare it to an empirical morality.
There IS no empirical morality... so your attempts are always going to fail.

Great. Total and unreasoned certainty.

Exactly like this?

2. That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. - Baptist Faith and Message (2000)
(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baptist_Faith_and_Message_%282000%29)
So... that says you can justify anything (anything!) if you can somehow connect it to the Bible?
sorry to not have responded to this. ive had family visting.

that is, in a nutshell, the basis for the baptist sect. that you dont need someone else to interpret the bible for you. you can read, study, pray, and make your OWN interpretations. you are your own moral agent.

there is alot to be said for it.

if you want an objective morality, consider this.

the more harm there is floating arround the more likely each and every one of us is to be injured by it.

the more harm or suffering any of us causes, there more there is floating arround.

as a believer in diversity being the nature of a reality that neither requires nor prevents the existence of anything, i see no bennifit in a belief that begins and ends in endless arguments over splitting its own hairs

nor can i make the least sense out of expecting what we believe to be greater then ourselves beggining and ending with what we think we know about it.

i have experienced what i believe to be a nontangible presence filling the space between the trees and between the stars.

a nontangible presence about which no one knows anything other then the high probability that it intends us no harm.

if we can exist without having to, which we do, i see no reason nontangable forces and beings cannot as well. but i see equaly no reason to expect them to begin and end with what anyone thinks they know about it, especialy any and all that are greater then ourselves.

i fail to see the wrongful exicution of a charismatic leader by a paranoid government 2000 years ago, about wich we know almost nothing, other then the flamboyant and over the top descriptions of the incidents of the last three years of his life, by four of his surviving inner circle, as having very much to do with anything other then a sequence of random accidents that have brought this legend the world dominance it today enjoys.

there ARE older, and in some cases possibly wiser beliefs. the sacred text of christianity is NOT "all we have". it is mearly 'all we have' as historical record for the basis of that one, unfortunately dominant, belief.

=^^=
.../\...

I suppose that does happen. But the point of my question was to determine where this individual's moral standard came from. How does he "think it out for himself"? What standard does he use to compare the situation to?
beats me. i think its probably experience. when "the other" becomes "us" you cant treat them quite the same way you did before.

so you meet some quakers who feel that slavery is wrong and you discuss it with them. maybe you meet someone who helps people escape slavery when doing so puts them at great risk for serious prison time and you ask them why they do it.

or, if you are george washington, perhaps it happens when black troops save your bacon in brooklyn and yorktown and when a black man saves your brothers life. its hard to see them as people who should be kept in rags when you would be hanged as a traitor if they hadnt helped in the revolution.

Its fairly obvious that this person uses decapitation and murder as examples because they are held as obviosuly and totally wrong by most moral standards. It is clear that killing someone is wrong, s/he uses killing as an example because it explicitly shows how any moral system judging that as OK is flawed.


Or, perhaps, the other poster is just using 'decapitation and murder' as examples, because he/she is looking for an emotional response, rather than an approach that uses logic and reason.

In what way is killing 'clearly' wrong? Are the Old Testament instructions from God, to kill the infidel, 'clearly wrong'?

If morality is being argued as 'of God'... and an 'objective morality' is being argued, based ON god.... then how can a thing which God orders be immoral?


So you're saying that if something is considered moral to someone, then it is considered moral to that person. Why include anything about culture or majorities?


Because most of us live within cultures, and most of us follow cultural majority moralities.


Great. Total and unreasoned certainty.

Why do you question the assertion that there is 'no empirical morality'... but NOT question the assertion that there is?

An empirical morality should be somehow quantifiable. It should be 'observable'. One should be able to verify it. Since morality cannot be assayed, there can (logically) be no empirical morality.

It is like trying to 'weigh' God.

Its not no morals. Its diffrent morals. For example, there could be a very strange morality in someones mind that means that they must kill every third person they see. Now given that eveyone's morality is subjective, your morality in saying that is wrong is no better than theirs to say its right. The only diffrence may be that you have more people who agree with you. But that doesnt make you any more 'right' than the other person. So can you really accept that.
The way you have defined it here, morality means "what a person does" or "what a person chooses to do", and nothing more.

You have to state what morality means to you, here, or I don't understand.

1) Are you saying that Mother Therasas' good works were a foolish thing?

No. I am saying that if morality was subjective they would be no better, worse, more foolish or more wise than Adolf Hitlers attempt to create a master race by killing off all the weaker ones. In a world where there is subjective morality, no one can be proven to be good or bad seing as how morality is ulitmately not a benchmark you can be held against


2) What is your obsession with killing and hurting people?

I am using it as an example


3) If the majority agrees that a thing is morally acceptable, then that thing IS morally acceptable, to the MAJORITY, IN that culture.


Fine. So take this example. Suppose Mike is from Society A where you must punch the third person you see every day in the face. Suppose he then visits society B where that isnt acceptable. Except part of soceitiy A's social norms is that their society is superior to all others and thus they can obey their social norms wherever they please. However society B doenst accept this. Who is right?

Without objective morality, all morality is is the majority opinon of that time. That would mean that a few slight changes could mean that it would be 'right' for every non Aryan to be gassed or it would be 'right' for people to continue to burn their children as offerings in the high places of Cannen. Face it. If there is no objecitive morality then the world as you know it means absolutly nothing. It is just one time and one place, and is no better or worse by its content than Hitlers Germany or Stalin's Russia


You are taking the concept of individual morality, and cultural morality - and you are trying to compare it to an empirical morality.

There IS no empirical morality... so your attempts are always going to fail.

Fine. So you wont mind me killing you if I think its right. Because if there is subjective morality you have no authority to stop me. My morality could be that I have to kill you. You may think that your right to life is superior but I may disagree. Face it Grave, there has to be an objective morality or else this world and the ideas that support it mean nothing. We havent historically progressed at all. The morality of 1000 years ago was no better or worse than today.

No. I am saying that if morality was subjective they would be no better, worse, more foolish or more wise than Adolf Hitlers attempt to create a master race by killing off all the weaker ones. In a world where there is subjective morality, no one can be proven to be good or bad seing as how morality is ulitmately not a benchmark you can be held against
A 'subjective morality' means a person's sense of what is right and what is wrong. If morality is subjective, then each individual has their own ideas of whether what Hitler did or Mother Therasa did was right or wrong, and generally they will address individual actions by those people, not their entire "lives" or beings as one issue.

"What Hitler did" and "what Mother Therasa did" are not inherently right or wrong. Subjective morality means that each individual judges whether an action is right or wrong.

Therefore, it is foolish to say that subjective morality means that Hitler is, generally, no more or less right or wrong than Mother Therasa. Saying such a thing speaks about you, not them.

First: You aren't even sticking to your own premise, here.... if your 'morality' to kill me, is no less 'valid' than my 'morality' to defend myself.... then my defence is EXACTLY as 'legitimate' as your offense... by your own argument.

And, if the majority agrees with me... then my 'morality' gains the added 'legitimacy' of being supportable, and enforcable

Legitamacy only in terms of your ability to enforce it. Not in terms of its content. Think about it. In this world, we accept that all men are made equal. However suposing there was a society that said that if you were born to a certian class or social grouping, you were automatically a second class citizen and everyone else could order you around at whim. That doesnt sound right does it. But it has legitamacy in terms of its ability to be enforced. The fact that a system can be enforced doesnt make it right. Nazi Germany was well enforced, does that make it right? Of course not. But if there is no objective morality then everyone everywhere is "right" even when they disagree

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Second: Your 'example' is ridiculous, anyway. If I see you actually physically threatening my life, 'morality' is not going to affect whether or not I remove you as a threat. My self-preservation instincts will outrank any 'morality' you may feel justifies or denies my action.

Your missing the point. You may feel you have a right to live. I may feel you dont. So if the world contains subjective morality and no one can be proven to be obejctively right, the only legitiamcy of action we have is whether or not the people in the society around us agree with what we are doing.


By your own example... the answer must be "no"... since non-Aryans far outnumber Aryans.

If many people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing

I am not for the moment suggesting its right to kill all non aryans but the fact that more people believe something to be untrue than there are those who believe it to be true, doesnt change the fact of whether it is true or not. So just because a soceity believes something is right, doesnt make it so. But in a world of objective morality, anything is right. The only force an idea has comes from the society around it, not the content of an idea itself.

Without objective morality, all morality is is the majority opinon of that time. That would mean that a few slight changes could mean that it would be 'right' for every non Aryan to be gassed or it would be 'right' for people to continue to burn their children as offerings in the high places of Cannen. Face it. If there is no objecitive morality then the world as you know it means absolutly nothing. It is just one time and one place, and is no better or worse by its content than Hitlers Germany or Stalin's Russia


How do you get from 'lack of objective morality' to nihilism?

If there is no objective morality, my life continues just the same as it was doing a few seconds ago.

The world of today IS just one more time and place.

I'm not sure why that upsets you so much.



Fine. So you wont mind me killing you if I think its right. Because if there is subjective morality you have no authority to stop me. My morality could be that I have to kill you. You may think that your right to life is superior but I may disagree.


There you go again. Did you not read the response I made earlier?

If no subjective morality is more justifiable than any other subjective morality, then I have EXACTLY the same 'authority' to stop you, that you have to try to kill me.

And, more to the point, the 'cultural morality' that we are both living alongside, agrees with my subjective morality.


Face it Grave, there has to be an objective morality or else this world and the ideas that support it mean nothing. We havent historically progressed at all. The morality of 1000 years ago was no better or worse than today.

Rubbish.

The world is unaffected by your perception of morality.... it is governed by laws that do not 'require' morality.

Would it 'mean nothing' if there were no objective morality? Another question is "Does the world mean anything, now?"

Do the 'ideas that support our world' mean nothing? One wonders how much you think 'ideas' are required to support our 'world' now.... do you mean our culture?

You are right, though. In terms of time and place, our morality IS no better or worse than that of 1000 years ago.

Of course - by OUR standards, those who lived 1000 years ago had morals we would consider inferior.

But then, by THEIR standards, our morals would seem similarly flawed.

The only real problem with the entire story is that it assumes you can be 'changed' and feel remorse AFTER death.

I've seen no evidence that life isn't required as a prerequisite of change and growth and remorse. IF life is required, the atheist can't feel remorse and the born-again can't feel anger/resentment/self-justification.

I think this story can only make sense if it takes place before actual death of the participants.
first of all, its a parable, not a discussion of life after death. its not meant to be taken for anything but its "moral"

secondly, if we want to discuss "before death" there is already a parable in the new testament that covers it, right out of the mouth of jesus.

remember the one where the guy needs people to harvest his grapes(?)? he hires some at dawn, some at noon, some at 3 and some just before dusk. at dusk everyone gets the same days pay....

A 'subjective morality' means a person's sense of what is right and what is wrong. If morality is subjective, then each individual has their own ideas of whether what Hitler did or Mother Therasa did was right or wrong, and generally they will address individual actions by those people, not their entire "lives" or beings as one issue.

"What Hitler did" and "what Mother Therasa did" are not inherently right or wrong. Subjective morality means that each individual judges whether an action is right or wrong.

Therefore, it is foolish to say that subjective morality means that Hitler is, generally, no more or less right or wrong than Mother Therasa. Saying such a thing speaks about you, not them.

Can you hear yourself. Can you honestly accept a world where what Hitler did or what Mother Terresa did are not inheriantly right or wrong. Subjective morality DOES mean that what Mother Teressa did with her life is no better than what Hitler did with his life. Why? Because there is no outside party to judge the diffrence as all outside parties are subjective in their own view. Hitler was an individual, and he judged that to wipe out the Jews was right. Mother Teressa was an individual and she thought to help the poor was right. If all moralities are subjective, then no one can tell anyone that one action is better than another. No one can say that killing someone is worse than saving someones life. Subjective morality means that nothing means anything

The way you have defined it here, morality means "what a person does" or "what a person chooses to do", and nothing more.

You have to state what morality means to you, here, or I don't understand.

Morality means what a person believes is right and wrong.

Legitamacy only in terms of your ability to enforce it. Not in terms of its content. Think about it. In this world, we accept that all men are made equal. However suposing there was a society that said that if you were born to a certian class or social grouping, you were automatically a second class citizen and everyone else could order you around at whim. That doesnt sound right does it. But it has legitamacy in terms of its ability to be enforced. The fact that a system can be enforced doesnt make it right. Nazi Germany was well enforced, does that make it right? Of course not. But if there is no objective morality then everyone everywhere is "right" even when they disagree


In this world we accept that all men are made equal?

Who the hell told you THAT?

We have a whole world of different cultures, my friend. Have you not noticed there is a world outside your window?

Have you not noticed that MOST of the world still has 'class systems' of one kind or another?

Have you never heard of 'untouchables'?

Were you not aware that homosexuals in many cultures are forbidden rights allowed to heterosexuals? (Thankfully, my mother country is finally catching up... having legalised both gay unions, and gay adoption in recent weeks).

You state it - but do you believe it?


Your missing the point. You may feel you have a right to live. I may feel you dont. So if the world contains subjective morality and no one can be proven to be obejctively right, the only legitiamcy of action we have is whether or not the people in the society around us agree with what we are doing.


I totally agree.

Maybe you have finally seen the light.


If many people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing

I am not for the moment suggesting its right to kill all non aryans but the fact that more people believe something to be untrue than there are those who believe it to be true, doesnt change the fact of whether it is true or not. So just because a soceity believes something is right, doesnt make it so. But in a world of objective morality, anything is right. The only force an idea has comes from the society around it, not the content of an idea itself.

You are interchanging the word 'moral' with the word 'truth'.

You are looking for an objective morality, which YOU think is really there... and you are assuming that it MUST be there... that there MUST be some 'true' morality.

But, there is no evidence for such a thing, my friend.

And a world of historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary.

Can you hear yourself. Can you honestly accept a world where what Hitler did or what Mother Terresa did are not inheriantly right or wrong. Subjective morality DOES mean that what Mother Teressa did with her life is no better than what Hitler did with his life. Why? Because there is no outside party to judge the diffrence as all outside parties are subjective in their own view. Hitler was an individual, and he judged that to wipe out the Jews was right. Mother Teressa was an individual and she thought to help the poor was right. If all moralities are subjective, then no one can tell anyone that one action is better than another. No one can say that killing someone is worse than saving someones life. Subjective morality means that nothing means anything
Do you know what Hitler did and what Mother Therasa did? They went to the bathroom. They put their underwear on one foot at a time. They ate, they laughed, they loved and they hated. They were both human. They made mistakes.

What you are actually comparing is the one thing (action, attitude, event, etc.) that has been arbitrarily chosen by society to represent their lives.

"Subjective morality DOES mean that what Mother Teressa did with her life is no better than what Hitler did with his life. Why? Because there is no outside party to judge the diffrence as all outside parties are subjective in their own view."
On the contrary, you are that outside party who is judging the difference between them. We each are. That is what subjective morality means.

The morality you display is yours, subjectively. Mine is mine. If you say Hitler is no different than Mother Teressa, then that is your opinion expressing your morality. It does not reflect on anyone else's.

How do you get from 'lack of objective morality' to nihilism?

If there is no objective morality, my life continues just the same as it was doing a few seconds ago.

The world of today IS just one more time and place.

I'm not sure why that upsets you so much.

What your saying is at the time the Nazi's were in power it was right for the Jews to be exterminated. But now that they arnt it is wrong. If there is an objective morality it was always wrong. But if there is a subjective morality it is neither right nor wrong. It just is. Why? Well for something to be right or wrong you have to have a set of ideas about what right and wrong are. Except in a world of subjective morality no such set exists. Everyone has their own ideas about right and wrong and because all men are created equal, no one set of morals has any legitamacy over another. Now what can happen is that one set of morality gains support, and group of people enforce it. However as the old addage goes "if many people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing". No matter how many people believe something to be right, it doesnt make it right.


There you go again. Did you not read the response I made earlier?

If no subjective morality is more justifiable than any other subjective morality, then I have EXACTLY the same 'authority' to stop you, that you have to try to kill me.

So who is right? Huh Grave? Who is right?

The answer is the one who comes out on top (In a world of subjective morals) obviously. If I am able to kill you then I have enforced my morality thus I was right to kill you. In the same way that in a world of subjective morals if the Nazis had won world war two killing all non aryans would be right


Rubbish.

The world is unaffected by your perception of morality.... it is governed by laws that do not 'require' morality.

Laws are based upon what the poweres that be believe is right. In a world of subjective morals no one can say that they are right or wrong certianly because its just their morality that tells them whether its right or wrong


Would it 'mean nothing' if there were no objective morality? Another question is "Does the world mean anything, now?".

Do the 'ideas that support our world' mean nothing? One wonders how much you think 'ideas' are required to support our 'world' now.... do you mean our culture?

The ideas that support our world, democracy, liberalism, socialism etc. What do they say. They say it is right that the people should choose the government because the people are the ones affected. But in a world of subjective morality it is no more right or wrong than monarchy. So the idea of democracy means nothing. It is no better than anything else. Its just another idea on the scrapheap of the human intelect.


You are right, though. In terms of time and place, our morality IS no better or worse than that of 1000 years ago.

Of course - by OUR standards, those who lived 1000 years ago had morals we would consider inferior.

But then, by THEIR standards, our morals would seem similarly flawed.

So 2000 years ago it was right that men should fight other men to the death for fun? Was it.

Can you hear yourself. Can you honestly accept a world where what Hitler did or what Mother Terresa did are not inheriantly right or wrong.

I can.

Can you NOT accept that?


Subjective morality DOES mean that what Mother Teressa did with her life is no better than what Hitler did with his life.


No - what it means is there is no OBJECTIVE measure. No 'scale' on which both actions are empirically judged.


If all moralities are subjective, then no one can tell anyone that one action is better than another.


On the contrary... EVERY person can do exactly that. And, you may notice, in the real world.... they do.

No one can say that killing someone is worse than saving someones life.


And, that is true.

Sometimes, maybe killing someone IS better than saving their life?

If, for example.... they are suffering in pain. My morality tells me that THAT person MIGHT be better of with a quick, painless end.

Subjective morality means that nothing means anything

Balderdash.

Whether or not morality is subjective, mathematical laws are unaffected.

I really cannot understand your worldview, that equates 'no OBJECTIVE morality' with 'let's kill and hurt people' or 'nothing means anything'.

Do you know what Hitler did and what Mother Therasa did? They went to the bathroom. They put their underwear on one foot at a time. They ate, they laughed, they loved and they hated. They were both human. They made mistakes.


I bet Mother Therasa ACTUALLY used to throw her underwear in the air, and see if she could catch it on both feet.....

:)

Do you know what Hitler did and what Mother Therasa did? They went to the bathroom. They put their underwear on one foot at a time. They ate, they laughed, they loved and they hated. They were both human. They made mistakes.

What you are actually comparing is the one thing (action, attitude, event, etc.) that has been arbitrarily chosen by society to represent their lives.

"Subjective morality DOES mean that what Mother Teressa did with her life is no better than what Hitler did with his life. Why? Because there is no outside party to judge the diffrence as all outside parties are subjective in their own view."
On the contrary, you are that outside party who is judging the difference between them. We each are. That is what subjective morality means.

The morality you display is yours, subjectively. Mine is mine. If you say Hitler is no different than Mother Teressa, then that is your opinion expressing your morality. It does not reflect on anyone else's.

Do you not get it. They had a subjective morality of their own. They believed what they were doing was right. I judge their lives but if morality is subjective then my judgement is worth no more than anyone elses. Thus it cannot be said for certianity that Mother Terresa was good or that Hitler was bad. So do you actually belive that. I dont belive that Mother Terresa's life was as Good or Bad as Hitlers. My point is that if morality is subjective then no one can say beyond their own opinion that either one of them was good or bad. It cannot be proven. Thus it cannot also be proven that Harold Shipmnan was a bad man for killing all the people he did. Thus the judge in his case had no authority to sentence him to prision other than the fact that a great many others in the country agreed with him. But like I said, if many people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Just because many people believe something, doesnt make it right.

No - what it means is there is no OBJECTIVE measure. No 'scale' on which both actions are empirically judged.

So the only judgement is your own opinion. Nothing else



On the contrary... EVERY person can do exactly that. And, you may notice, in the real world.... they do.

With no authority. With no objective morality no one can prove that murder is wrong. No one can prove that theft is wrong. No one can prove that anything is wrong or right. If morality is subjective, its like a taste in music. You cannot prove one band better than another. So the only authority a judge has is that the most people agree with him


Balderdash.

Whether or not morality is subjective, mathematical laws are unaffected.

I really cannot understand your worldview, that equates 'no OBJECTIVE morality' with 'let's kill and hurt people' or 'nothing means anything'.

Let me make this clear. If there is no objective morality, then you cannot prove that murder is wrong. You cannot prove that rape is wrong. You cannot prove that giving to charity is right. You cannot prove that stealing is wrong. So every action that you base on your morality can only be proven right to you and no one else. So if someone else believed it was their right to kill you, and you believed diffrently, in a world of subjective morals neither one is right. The one who is proven right is the one who was able to enfoce his morality.

What your saying is at the time the Nazi's were in power it was right for the Jews to be exterminated. But now that they arnt it is wrong. If there is an objective morality it was always wrong. But if there is a subjective morality it is neither right nor wrong. It just is. Why? Well for something to be right or wrong you have to have a set of ideas about what right and wrong are. Except in a world of subjective morality no such set exists. Everyone has their own ideas about right and wrong and because all men are created equal, no one set of morals has any legitamacy over another. Now what can happen is that one set of morality gains support, and group of people enforce it. However as the old addage goes "if many people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing". No matter how many people believe something to be right, it doesnt make it right.


I didn't say what you seem to think I said.

If the Nazi's had won the war, THEY would have thought it 'right' to kill the Jews, maybe.... but that is not the same as it becoming the morality of ALL the people.

Within our cultures, certain moralities gain and lose ground. When more people believe the thing than disbelieve it, it is considered 'morally good'. When it is the other way, it is considered 'morally bad'.

Within that society, individuals will still have their OWN morals.


So who is right? Huh Grave? Who is right?

The answer is the one who comes out on top (In a world of subjective morals) obviously. If I am able to kill you then I have enforced my morality thus I was right to kill you. In the same way that in a world of subjective morals if the Nazis had won world war two killing all non aryans would be right


Actually - no. The one who is 'right' is the one who has more support... not necessarily the one who is stronger, or wins the battle.

So - if the Nazi's had won the war, AND more people agreed with them, than were against them... THEN, the 'subjective morality' would have supported their exterminations.

However, individuals, and collectives, STILL would have disagreed.


Laws are based upon what the poweres that be believe is right. In a world of subjective morals no one can say that they are right or wrong certianly because its just their morality that tells them whether its right or wrong


This is true.

How do you feel about homosexuals?


The ideas that support our world, democracy, liberalism, socialism etc. What do they say. They say it is right that the people should choose the government because the people are the ones affected. But in a world of subjective morality it is no more right or wrong than monarchy. So the idea of democracy means nothing. It is no better than anything else. Its just another idea on the scrapheap of the human intelect.


This is also true. Democracy is 'better' for our society, now... but might not have worked in all situations, at all times.

Governments must meet the needs of their people.

In SOME situations, you could argue that a totalitarian despotism is the 'best' government.


So 2000 years ago it was right that men should fight other men to the death for fun? Was it.

Not to my morality. Not to the morality of a LOT of people who lived then.

But, for that culture, then... maybe?

Morality means what a person believes is right and wrong.
... if there is no objective morality then everyone everywhere is "right" even when they disagree.
I think that what you are suggesting is that what a person believes makes for reality --that if a person believes that what they are doing is right, then (if morality is subjective) that is a 'right' thing. No, it doesn't work that way, even for atheists. That is only the thing they think is right for them.

A 'right' thing is not determined by what a person believes. If you note my definition of morality differed from yours: it was, "a person's sense of right and wrong." That sense is significant, because it determines our unconscious judgements, and those judgements can be altered by a conscious effort. What feels "right" can be altered by a conscious effort to be in accordance with rules, mores, laws and dictates of social interaction. We call the sense conscience, and it can be overruled by will (choice).

Subjective morals are dictated by conscientious choice.

So the only judgement is your own opinion. Nothing else


My opinion. Your opinion. And, everyone else's opinion.

We all see the world, and we all see it differently.


Let me make this clear.


You speak like you have some kind of authority on the matter.... your sin, I fear, is pride.

If there is no objective morality, then you cannot prove that murder is wrong. You cannot prove that rape is wrong. You cannot prove that giving to charity is right. You cannot prove that stealing is wrong.


It depends on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong'.

If there is no objective morality, there can still be order, and there can still be law.

How - by the simple premise that we are creatures that like to protect ourselves, and remove outside threats.

Our laws do not JUST satisfy the 'moral' needs of our time, they also protect the individual, and the property of the individual, from forms of harm.

So... is murder wrong? In non-moral terms? I general, probably yes... because every individual wishes to be protected from murder, and so our society has laws that protect individuals from murder.

We don't NEED an 'objective morality'... we have social pragmatism.

So every action that you base on your morality can only be proven right to you and no one else. So if someone else believed it was their right to kill you, and you believed diffrently, in a world of subjective morals neither one is right.[QUOTE=Adriatitca]


Wrong. In a world of subjective morals, neither one is MORE right than the other. There is no 'right' and no 'wrong'.... there are only perceptions.


The one who is proven right is the one who was able to enfoce his morality.

Not at all.... the one who is in agreement with the majority, is 'more right' than the one who is against it. BY THE STANDARDS of that society.

Do you not get it. They had a subjective morality of their own. They believed what they were doing was right. I judge their lives but if morality is subjective then my judgement is worth no more than anyone elses. Thus it cannot be said for certianity that Mother Terresa was good or that Hitler was bad. So do you actually belive that. I dont belive that Mother Terresa's life was as Good or Bad as Hitlers. My point is that if morality is subjective then no one can say beyond their own opinion that either one of them was good or bad. It cannot be proven.
...if morality is subjective then everyone can say, by their opinion, that either one of them was good or bad. It does not need to be proven.

Thus it cannot also be proven that Harold Shipmnan was a bad man for killing all the people he did. Thus the judge in his case had no authority to sentence him to prision other than the fact that a great many others in the country agreed with him. But like I said, if many people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Just because many people believe something, doesnt make it right.
The judge has a different job than the person moralizing: his job is to look at the evidence and make a judgement. That is not proof, and it is (hopefully) not opinion. It is justice.

With no authority. With no objective morality no one can prove that murder is wrong. No one can prove that theft is wrong. No one can prove that anything is wrong or right. If morality is subjective, its like a taste in music. You cannot prove one band better than another. So the only authority a judge has is that the most people agree with him.
What other authority does one man have? The only authority any judge has is what we, as a society, give him in his role as justice. We set him up, lob criminals at him, and let the pins falls where they may. His authority comes from the Law of the Land that we, as a group, have constructed. His judgement, although of one man (or one jury), is not opinion, or a consensus of opinion --it is justice.

Just because we have individual subjective moralities, that doesn't mean we lack a collective morality, subjective to the whole group. That is what provides the judge his authority.

Have you seen those old B movies, where travelers are in a strange country (say, populated by "savages") and run afoul of their legal system. They are forced to submit to incarceration and a odd trial (sacrificing a virgin to "prove" their innocence to a judge, usually the "chief" ...whatever). Does that judge have moral authority? Yes; he has the authority of his group.
(Actually, our heroes/travelers usually retain their authority of righteousness, regardless, because after all they are Americans/Europeans/Marx Brothers ...whatever.)

Let me make this clear. If there is no objective morality, then you cannot prove that murder is wrong. You cannot prove that rape is wrong. You cannot prove that giving to charity is right. You cannot prove that stealing is wrong. So every action that you base on your morality can only be proven right to you and no one else. So if someone else believed it was their right to kill you, and you believed diffrently, in a world of subjective morals neither one is right. The one who is proven right is the one who was able to enfoce his morality.
Nothing in a court of law is proven, it is only demonstrated sufficiently to provide a conclusion that (hopefully) is just. The one who enforces his morality is not "proven right", they just have demonstrated that they are physically stronger/faster/smarter ...whatever. If they believe that what they do is right, that does not make it "right", it just makes it "right to them" (right from their point of view).

The "world of subjective morals" is populated by individuals. But, at the same time, we live in a collective. It's not an either-or situation.

I can.

Can you NOT accept that?



No - what it means is there is no OBJECTIVE measure. No 'scale' on which both actions are empirically judged.



On the contrary... EVERY person can do exactly that. And, you may notice, in the real world.... they do.



And, that is true.

Sometimes, maybe killing someone IS better than saving their life?

If, for example.... they are suffering in pain. My morality tells me that THAT person MIGHT be better of with a quick, painless end.



Balderdash.

Whether or not morality is subjective, mathematical laws are unaffected.

I really cannot understand your worldview, that equates 'no OBJECTIVE morality' with 'let's kill and hurt people' or 'nothing means anything'.

you actually managed to use balderdash in an argument . .. your officially my hero now
[Woad founds church of idle]
[war breaks out between a break away group and the true idlers]
[all members are killed save by a mirical Woad]
well that was fun . .. .

I haven't sinned.
r u sure?????:p

you actually managed to use balderdash in an argument . .. your officially my hero now
Technically, "Balderdash" is an opinion, not an argument. ;)

But yeah, kudos for archaic words.

you actually managed to use balderdash in an argument . .. your officially my hero now
[Woad founds church of idle]
[war breaks out between a break away group and the true idlers]
[all members are killed save by a mirical Woad]
well that was fun . .. .

And, you just made my day. :D

Thanks. That was a blast.

Hmm, a Church of Idle.... that sounds like something that needs to exist...

Technically, "Balderdash" is an opinion, not an argument. ;)

But yeah, kudos for archaic words.

Well, DaWoad said 'in' an argument, rather than 'as' an argument... so it's all good.

I actually freaked out people I was talking to on another site, by using the phrase "Brethren and Sistren"....

If Hitler had won the second world war, would it be right to kill every non aryan in the world.
From a policy sense it would be nonsenical, since Hitler himself wasn't an "aryan" and neither were most of the teuton-spawn he was inspiring.
Aryans are indo-europeans, something those stupid motherf*cker neo-nazis don't bother to accept as case of fact.

Not quite. More like "God favors those who respect their fellow human beings, though they were wrong, over those who have contempt for their neighbors, though they may have been right. It also means that the Atheist had actually accepted God without realizing it, while the Born Again Christian had rejected God and instead worshipped at the alter of his own ego.


Wherein did the Atheist "disobey all of God's laws, all of Mans Laws, be a complete and unforgiving Asshole to God and Man"

Cause in the story he was "a warm place in many cold lives, a staunch defender, and a helping hand when one was needed most. You have been charitable to the poor, and have been a good husband and father, always faithful and understanding to your wife, always acting in your children’s best interests. Even when you succumbed to temptation, as all people will, you did your best to reduce the harm of your sin."

And the Born Again Christian was a "Complete and Unforgiving Asshole to God and Man" and was cast from God's sight, living in what my interpretation of hell would be.

Did you read all of the story? I don't see how you came to these conclusions about it's moral.

I am Christian and think the parable must be true. I have never had an argument with an atheist as vociferous as one with a Christian who claims self-righteousness. We are all sinners whether we are guilty of murder, lying, theft or being homosexual. Love the sinner and hate the sin, for it is in our fellow man that we see God, who made us in his image.

Maybe if I'd had God recant the sins of both parties in endless detail, people would see the point, rather than going on about "Salvation through deeds" as if that was my message. However, I don't feel as if I could go back and rewrite it that way now. Maybe another time.

In any case, it seems biblically valid, as in 25 pages no one has brought up the verse directly contradicting it, though there were a couple things that might have inferred it being untrue.

Another thing I thought while I was writing the story, is that perhaps God, rather than simply "making us in his image" made us of himself. Maybe God descided that he was not completely happy with the way he was, and so he sent billions of pieces of himself (in the form of souls) to the earth, and those who accept him, and the truth, and allow themselves to be forgiven are taken back in, while those who reject him are not.

so anyway, thanks for all of the criticism and praise, and no thanks for the comments of people who wrote in before thinking at all about what I was saying.

Maybe if I'd had God recant the sins of both parties in endless detail, people would see the point, rather than going on about "Salvation through deeds" as if that was my message. However, I don't feel as if I could go back and rewrite it that way now. Maybe another time.

In any case, it seems biblically valid, as in 25 pages no one has brought up the verse directly contradicting it, though there were a couple things that might have inferred it being untrue.

Another thing I thought while I was writing the story, is that perhaps God, rather than simply "making us in his image" made us of himself. Maybe God descided that he was not completely happy with the way he was, and so he sent billions of pieces of himself (in the form of souls) to the earth, and those who accept him, and the truth, and allow themselves to be forgiven are taken back in, while those who reject him are not.

so anyway, thanks for all of the criticism and praise, and no thanks for the comments of people who wrote in before thinking at all about what I was saying.If i understand you correctly, i don't imagine a lot of people have any problem with "faith through deeds".
Also, i like your middle paragraph. That is good thinking as far as religious concerns go. You're probably on to something. It'd be nice if there were enough scripture to back you up ... maybe there is in apocrypha.

Thanks. That was a blast.

Hmm, a Church of Idle.... that sounds like something that needs to exist...
We could be allies. :D

We could be allies. :D

As the will of Bob dictates. :)

As the will of Bob dictates. :)
That is just TOO creepy. :eek:
Certainly, you know there's a Bobfest held nationally each year, and it has very little to do with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? Or Connie?
Also, did you know he had a bird named after him IRL?
The H.R. "Bob" Plover. No sh*t.

BTW, you'd make an excellent team, IMO.

That is just TOO creepy. :eek:
Certainly, you know there's a Bobfest held nationally each year, and it has very little to do with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? Or Connie?
Also, did you know he had a bird named after him IRL?
The H.R. "Bob" Plover. No sh*t.

BTW, you'd make an excellent team, IMO.

Why, thank you, my friend... you've been no slacker, yourself.

All in all, at the moment, I think we have one of the best debating 'teams' (for want of a better description) I've seen on any forum.

(I'd list it... but I'd miss someone, and then I'd feel bad).

Why, thank you, my friend... you've been no slacker, yourself.

All in all, at the moment, I think we have one of the best debating 'teams' (for want of a better description) I've seen on any forum.

(I'd list it... but I'd miss someone, and then I'd feel bad).
As far as this topic goes, agreed completely. *bows*

As far as this topic goes, agreed completely. *bows*
If we're calling teams, I want Iakeonui on mine. ;)

If we're calling teams, I want Iakeonui on mine. ;)

Good. That means my eyes didn't deceive when they tried to convince me that Warm Tropicals once again stalked the forum...

Maybe it's cheating, but I was already calling you and the Keonu-ey one for my team. ;)

(Hell, if the battleground is such that it'll take it, I want (Peech), Straughn, Jocabia, Smunkeeville, Bottle, Dempublicents, UpwardThrust, Ph33rdom... and far too many others... on my team also. I just doubt there'd be many threads you could field that diverse a team on....)

(So - who did I miss?)