Morals Not From God

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1913290' date='Jul 7 2009, 12:47 AM']Why? Assuming we humans are agents of free will we have the choice to act pro-socially (good) or anti-socially (bad). Good and bad still exist but they come from society not from god, and they can change over time and evolve, and differ from culture to culture. Good is still good but it's not the make-believe good with eternal rewards and pleasing to god the religious would have you believe. If anything, it's a better kind of good because you're choosing to act good for the sake of good rather than out of scoring brownie points with JC.[/quote]

Why be good for the sake of it?


[quote name='bonkers' post='1913311' date='Jul 7 2009, 01:30 AM']Our understanding of morality and ethics has evovled. Previously it might have been OK to take black people as slaves and beat them for running away, but then again previously it might have been ok to take multiple wives and burn heretics at the stake. Our current society has decided the actions of previous generations were unjust and immoral and therefore has determiend to become more civilised and fair. In a hundred years from now, society then might look back on our generation and think of us and uncivilised and backward too, and the same thing will happen to their generation.[/quote]

So it's all relative.

[quote]The UN might answer to the people, billions of them if they decide the UN is wrong.[/quote]

And how would that happen? The UN is basically controlled by the biggest nations with the medium-size ones having small influence.

[quote]If both sides feel the other side is immoral, it might be that both sides are immoral or neither side is immoral, or there is a lack of trust or breakdown in communication or too much history and enmity to resolve things. It's just not black and white. That's why the UN is useful to arbitrate on such matters, because it is a trusted and repsected authority. That doesn't make it perfect, but neither is our systems of ethics.[/quote]

The UN is not trusted and it is not respected. It's a :censor: organization that is puppet controlled by the top nations. The UN can say a lot, but it can't do much without nearly all the big nations support. The US was able to invade Iraq and all the UN could do was watch.

[quote]It is not so much that popular opinion determines what is right but that it is incidental to what is right. It is universlaly understood and agreed that invading and stealing others people's lands is immoral and this is ingrained in our conscience, just like other things like murder, theft and rape.[/quote]

Why is invading and stealing others peoples lands immoral? Why is rape wrong? Ultimately, why are those things inherently wrong?


[quote]It is not so much there is power in numbers but in the collective conscience of the entire world that gives the world a moral authority.[/quote]

So when I have a moral dilemma, I should go to the world and ask them? By your reasoning, I must always go with the majority. I don't know why though.


/www.foxytunes.com/artist/relient+k/track/trademark]Relient K - Trademark[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[bonkers]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1913761' date='Jul 7 2009, 04:52 PM']Why be good for the sake of it? [/quote]

Why not?

[quote]So it's all relative.[/quote]

Yep

[quote]And how would that happen? The UN is basically controlled by the biggest nations with the medium-size ones having small influence.[/quote]

The people could make their voice heard through things such as protests and demonstrations.

[quote]The UN is not trusted and it is not respected. It's a :censor: organization that is puppet controlled by the top nations. The UN can say a lot, but it can't do much without nearly all the big nations support. The US was able to invade Iraq and all the UN could do was watch.[/quote]

They denounced the war as illegal and it gave the Iraq invasion a global perspective that it was an immoral war. Had the UN supported the war worldwide opinion would have been very different.

[quote]Why is invading and stealing others peoples lands immoral? Why is rape wrong? Ultimately, why are those things inherently wrong?[/quote]

They are wrong because they threaten the fabric of societies and are inherently destructive and anti-social behaviours.

[quote]So when I have a moral dilemma, I should go to the world and ask them? By your reasoning, I must always go with the majority. I don't know why though. [/quote]

I never said the majority, I said some things are universally condemned such as rape, murder and stealing. If you have a moral dilemma that conflicts with the whole world then you should perhaps give benefit of the doubt to the world. Other things aren't so clear cut, and society may be split on them and give individuals the right to determine whether something is right or wrong according to their own moral standards.

[Nihil Obstat]

Bonkers, what do you think of the fact that certain nations in the UN have veto power? What does that do to a worldwide opinion, if certain countries (and in particular I'm thinking about Russia and China) will often use their veto power to spite Western nations and to further their own not particularly altruistic goals?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1913072' date='Jul 6 2009, 09:59 PM']Same in your system.[/quote]

The strongest in our system is a moral God who never changes. Without which it's who ever has the gun, or the most powerful weapon.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1913216' date='Jul 6 2009, 11:55 PM']Society.[/quote]

If God can be denied, then society can be damned.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1913584' date='Jul 7 2009, 10:58 AM']Yep, and I'm taking one of the new ones that isn't even on insurance yet. Bummer.[/quote]
That is a bummer. Mine are cheaper.

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1913972' date='Jul 7 2009, 09:33 PM']If God can be denied, then society can be damned.[/quote]

Huh?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1914024' date='Jul 7 2009, 09:32 PM']Huh?[/quote]

If you can through out the Law of God, why can not another through out the law of society?

The answer of course is that they can through out the laws of society if there be no God. A murdering rapist could say "Oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of society, da[color="#000000"]m[/color]n society."

Edited July 8, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[bonkers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914057' date='Jul 7 2009, 09:56 PM']If you can through out the Law of God, why can not another through out the law of society?

The answer of course is that they can through out the laws of society if there be no God. A murdering rapist could say "Oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of society, da[color="#000000"]m[/color]n society."[/quote]

A murdering rapist could say "oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of god, beaver dam god". I'm not really following you here. People always have a choice, if you choose evil, you choose the consquences (hell or jail). Nobody is forced to agree with rules and laws of society, but if you don't like it stiff bickies.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914057' date='Jul 7 2009, 08:56 PM']If you can through out the Law of God, why can not another through out the law of society?

The answer of course is that they can through out the laws of society if there be no God. A murdering rapist could say "Oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of society, da[color="#000000"]m[/color]n society."[/quote]

This is quite a topic.. An atheist would argue that when we die -- we just die.. Like it or not it ends for us forever.. And the atheist would also argue that people created religion in part to deal with the concept of death.

Also the atheist would argue that you can indeed have morality without the existence of god. And he/she would point to religious people who have "morals" and say "See, they developed morality -- without god. They think that there is a god, but there isn't. However they are living their lives perhaps in a better fashion because of those beliefs, however false."

The concept of good and evil would still exist. The atheist would argue that it was created by man and philosophically correct. He/she would argue that whether or not there is life after death there are happier more satisfying more enjoyable ways to live -- and less happy ways to live.

If you ever listen to Dr Laura Schlessinger you'll notice that she does not reason by arguing morality in terms of god. She argues in terms of consequences and ultimately what makes us happy and secure. An atheist could easily see things from her point of view.

I personally have struggled with atheism. When I was in Elementary School and Junior High I loved reading mythology -- and I later saw the same themes repeated in the bible. That doesn't mean that the bible was completely made up but it tends to make me think some popular mythology was added to the bible over time. Wasn't it passed down orally for a very long time? Long before it was ever written down?

Are we just dealing with the uncomfortable reality that we're going to die one day? If not how do we really know? And if the religion turns out to be wrong will we have lived any worse for having believed in it?? I would argue that even if god and life after death turns out to be false that we will still have lived a better life because of our Christian morality

Edited July 8, 2009 by southern california guy

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1913965' date='Jul 7 2009, 08:30 PM']The strongest in our system is a moral God who never changes. Without which it's who ever has the gun, or the most powerful weapon.[/quote]


Yes, and it's the same in your system.


The most powerful agent, in your case God, makes the rules.

You aren't opposed to the most powerful player on the field calling the shots generally, you're simply opposed to that player not being the one who want.

Just like Eagle_Eyes isn't concerned that a system might allow genocide, he's worried that a system might allow genocide against the wrong people for the wrong reason.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1914057' date='Jul 7 2009, 09:56 PM']If you can through out the Law of God, why can not another through out the law of society?

The answer of course is that they can through out the laws of society if there be no God. A murdering rapist could say "Oh well laws and morals are just the opinion of society, da[color="#000000"]m[/color]n society."[/quote]

Laws always carry an implicit threat of some form of organized violence against the offending individual if they are not obeyed.

[kafka]

For a Christian moral laws are eternal since they are based on the Nature of God who is Eternity. They existed before man was even created therefore they cannot change or evolve. And they are based on the same Divine Nature which is Goodness itself. So they can be none other than immaculate, perfect, brilliant, good, peaceful, etc.

The judgments, understanding, intrepretation, and civil laws of men or groups of men in reflection of the moral law and its prinicples are corruptible, changeable, misguided, etc. because of the fallen state of human nature.

I do respect some views of the atheists since they percieve some of the naivete and lack of reason which occurs in some men practicing religion, however without grace reason is a fish out of water, so they are sometimes shortsighted in their arguments.

And Hassan

the whole genocide argument can be refuted Strictly speaking genocide isnt inherently evil since an entire race could be composed of just a handful of people and they could easily be killed for a just reason, and that would fall under the term 'genocide' so the whole case needs to be investigated closer. Israel waged war on those tribes to take their lands out of the justice and mercy and order and commandment of God. Those tribes knew they were being attacked, and knew Israel was strong since the whole land knew they took Sehon and Og. They had several options such as retreat, fleeing, the Gibeonites actually surrendered to Israel in a deceitful manner and entered into a pact with Israel, and finally they all had a chance to repent from their sins and idol worship before God wiped them out via Israel and his own Deeds (hail, wasps, etc). So it is all a little more complex then the genocide being used when describing the Nazis.

edited to add a couple more ideas.

Edited July 8, 2009 by kafka

[Winchester]

Has anyone brought up Hitler, yet?

[kafka]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1914434' date='Jul 8 2009, 03:23 PM']Has anyone brought up Hitler, yet?[/quote]
notice how I tactfully used 'Nazis' instead of 'Hitler' in my above post.