Cortes also wrote:
“I never posited that the absolute morality I am speaking of is motivated by religion”
See my above post…
You are making two very conflicting statements.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Agreed. And since it looks like Cortes bailed on proving God’s existence, I’m going to bed.[/quote]
You try posting on PWI while your hungry one year old son is clamoring for his dinner. [/quote]
I remember spending some time at my Uncles house when my cousin was 2. You’re in for some fun, I can tell you that much.
;)[/quote]
Tell me about it. You have no idea just how much ecstatic happiness and furious frustration someone who only weighs 20lbs can be until you have a child. The ups way make up for any of the downs, though.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Agreed. And since it looks like Cortes bailed on proving God’s existence, I’m going to bed.[/quote]
You try posting on PWI while your hungry one year old son is clamoring for his dinner. [/quote]
I remember spending some time at my Uncles house when my cousin was 2. You’re in for some fun, I can tell you that much.
;)[/quote]
Tell me about it. You have no idea just how much ecstatic happiness and furious frustration someone who only weighs 20lbs can be until you have a child. The ups way make up for any of the downs, though.
[/quote]
don’t dodge me, man…
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The laws I am speaking of existed well before any religion ever existed.
[/quote]
You are being self-contradictory.
How do you reconcile the above statement with: “I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God.”
Secondly, you’re argument is full of holes too. It essentially boils down to “because God says its wrong”. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong - something that many Christians believe in, described as an “abomination”. In the same chapter, it describes eating shrimp as an “abomination”, and wearing cotton and linen at the same time as an “abomination” too.
Surely, then, you must subscribe to these beliefs, considering that your “justification” (which I do not believe to be a justification at all) is that God says so, remembering that the Bible is supposed to be God’s word.[/quote]
Where on earth did you come to the conclusion that religion and God are the same things?
I never mentioned religion as the source of morality. I never mentioned the Bible. And I never said that God “saying so” is the source of an absolute morality.
How about engaging me on something I actually did say? There’s not one word of my argument in your entire post. If there is, quote it for me, please.
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Agreed. And since it looks like Cortes bailed on proving God’s existence, I’m going to bed.[/quote]
You try posting on PWI while your hungry one year old son is clamoring for his dinner. [/quote]
I remember spending some time at my Uncles house when my cousin was 2. You’re in for some fun, I can tell you that much.
;)[/quote]
Tell me about it. You have no idea just how much ecstatic happiness and furious frustration someone who only weighs 20lbs can be until you have a child. The ups way make up for any of the downs, though.
[/quote]
don’t dodge me, man…[/quote]
You haven’t thrown anything at me yet.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Also, I never posited that the absolute morality I am speaking of is motivated by religion. The purpose of a religion is to know and form a relationship with God. The laws I am speaking of existed well before any religion ever existed.
[/quote]
Can you see how the above does not agree with the quote below?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God.
[/quote]
How can you not say that God has nothing to do with religion? Quoted from the New Oxford American Dictionary: “Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods” You yourself said the purpose of religion is to form a relationship with God.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I never said that God “saying so” is the source of an absolute morality.
[quote]
Yes you did. Saying that “absolute morality is derived from God” is saying that God said so in a sophisticated manner. If not, please specify what “derived from God” means.
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Also, I never posited that the absolute morality I am speaking of is motivated by religion. The purpose of a religion is to know and form a relationship with God. The laws I am speaking of existed well before any religion ever existed.
[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God.
[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I never said that God “saying so” is the source of an absolute morality.
[/quote]
[quote]
Yes you did. Saying that “absolute morality is derived from God” is saying that God said so in a sophisticated manner. If not, please specify what “derived from God” means.[/quote][/quote]
Good grief. Religion and God are NOT the same thing. Religion is a means of having a relationship with God.
And, since either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or you are being willfully disingenuous, I will repeat myself just one more time:
An absolute morality did not arise “because God said so,” that would mean that God arbitrarily came up with the rules. Now the reason I think you may just be being disingenuous here is that you specifically left off the next sentence in your quote of mine, which clearly explains the first. Here’s the quote again, the way it should have been presented:
[quote]
I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God. It exists because it is the essence of His nature.[/quote]
What is the point in my arguing with you if you are going to change everything I say so that you can argue against it?
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?
“It exists because it is the essence of His nature.”
The thing about religion is people always use these really arbitrary terms. Can you specify exactly what this means? How could you know what the essence of “His nature” is, other than him saying so?
Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Through your belief in God, you have “discovered” the “absolute morality”. This belief in God is your religion. Yet, you specify that absolute morality does not come from religion…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Wrong move dude, he’s not gonna budge on that one. I considered that too. Likely he’s had a "spiritual or personal experience’ with Him.
I think this is a terrible idea. Stunts like this are trivialising an important message that other popularisers of science, like Carl Sagan, managed to convey without patronising people or offending them. And it means that it will be much harder in future to have a proper debate about religion without atheists being branded as zealots and fanatics.
I do want to see people brought to account for the widespread abuse of children, no-one here is arguing with that, but this is not the way to do it.
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Wrong move dude, he’s not gonna budge on that one. I considered that too. Likely he’s had a "spiritual or personal experience’ with Him.[/quote]
…it doesn’t matter, because in the end it boils down to that simple question. Either he can’t prove god exists, and his assertion on absolute morality is baseless, or he says what you said he will admit to which makes the experience subjective, and thus far from absolute…
…or he is able to prove god exists and i’m converting to christianity!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Thanks eph. It doesn’t surprise me, as an American who has now lived in Japan for 8 years, that the person who appears to actually be speaking the same language I am is one whom I assume is not even a native speaker of that language.
I think there are two ways to go at this. First, yes, I do believe that the existence of an absolute morality assumes, even requires the existence of a God. However, I’m not so sure you need to prove He exists in order to prove there is an absolute morality. I think that there is a ton of evidence that we humans do work off of a law that has always existed and is unchangeable (some will argue details and play word games, but no society will ever come to see lying, selfishness or greed as a virtue, or necrophilia as a noble pursuit, for example).
Indeed, I believe that if you dig deep enough, the morality will (and does) reveal God to us in that that morality is a reflection of His nature. A peek into who God really is, if you will.
Second, I think that the onus is first on the moral relativist to defend why his version of morality is justifiable, as moral absolutism (not to be confused with despotism) has a long history of producing some of the most stable, productive, “evolved” societies in our human history. Whereas you could argue that moral relativism either has not really been tested in earnest, or it has resulted in some of the most spectacularly evil societies our world has ever known.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I think this is a terrible idea. Stunts like this are trivialising an important message that other popularisers of science, like Carl Sagan, managed to convey without patronising people or offending them. And it means that it will be much harder in future to have a proper debate about religion without atheists being branded as zealots and fanatics.
I do want to see people brought to account for the widespread abuse of children, no-one here is arguing with that, but this is not the way to do it.[/quote]
Well said. This was my original point.
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
“It exists because it is the essence of His nature.”
The thing about religion is people always use these really arbitrary terms. Can you specify exactly what this means? How could you know what the essence of “His nature” is, other than him saying so?
Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Through your belief in God, you have “discovered” the “absolute morality”. This belief in God is your religion. Yet, you specify that absolute morality does not come from religion…[/quote]
You really do not know the first thing about religion, do you? You’d like to box it up and label it and set it on a shelf so that you can easily knock it down, but it doesn’t work that way. A swan doesn’t suddenly become a duck just because you say so.
Anyway I see how you operate. You just set up straw man after straw man, arguing with some imaginary persona you’ve concocted. Have fun with him, because I’m done replying to you.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Thanks eph. It doesn’t surprise me, as an American who has now lived in Japan for 8 years, that the person who appears to actually be speaking the same language I am is one whom I assume is not even a native speaker of that language.
I think there are two ways to go at this. First, yes, I do believe that the existence of an absolute morality assumes, even requires the existence of a God. However, I’m not so sure you need to prove He exists in order to prove there is an absolute morality. I think that there is a ton of evidence that we humans do work off of a law that has always existed and is unchangeable (some will argue details and play word games, but no society will ever come to see lying, selfishness or greed as a virtue, or necrophilia as a noble pursuit, for example).
Indeed, I believe that if you dig deep enough, the morality will (and does) reveal God to us in that that morality is a reflection of His nature. A peek into who God really is, if you will.
Second, I think that the onus is first on the moral relativist to defend why his version of morality is justifiable, as moral absolutism (not to be confused with despotism) has a long history of producing some of the most stable, productive, “evolved” societies in our human history. Whereas you could argue that moral relativism either has not really been tested in earnest, or it has resulted in some of the most spectacularly evil societies our world has ever known. [/quote]
…firstly, altough i don’t mind defending my position, the reasons you gave in support of your position are clearly false. When you argue that societies [alledgedly] based on absolute morality have been the most evolved societies we’ve had, you clearly fail to take into account the horrors that accompanied the founding of those nations…
…i have to assume you’re talking about the USA, a budding society that violently and mercilessly slaughtered the indigenous peoples of that continent in order to make it it’s own. You can’t call that moral no matter how you stretch the definition…
…secondly, you can’t separate religion from society. The Catholic Church has been so influential throughout history, and made an [almost] everlasting impression on the Western world, but especially in light of current events, this church can hardly be called “moral”…
…i would even go as far as suggesting that the failure of the church and modern society to act morally, based on the religious absolute morality it holds so dearly, is proof in itself that no such thing exists. Now, before you pull the “born as sinners”-card from your sleave, you still need to show that there is a divine source of morality instead of a set of rules that humankind developed in order to structure a society in such a way that it prospers…
…for me personally, humankind is the only kind of animal that is able, within limits, to make a conscious choice whether an act benefits the tribe or not, and it’s this ability to choose that’s the foundation of morality. Many, if not all, acts of ‘evil’ are the result of a sick mind; a mind whose ability to make the appropriate choice is obscured by trauma or fascination…
…what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
I guess you guys realize that:
a. The morality of followers of the SAME religion differs radically:
Example: Some christians find it ok to kill people working in abortion clinics, most do not.
b. The morality of followers of the same religion CHANGES with time:
Example: The pope will no longer support execution of atheists or heretics like in the middle ages.
So how is religion good at giving an answer to the question which morality is superior to another?
Morality will always be heavily influenced by social norms which do not have much to do with religion itself.
From a practical point of view I think whether a person ACTS like what the majority of people at that time will feel is morally sound has nothing do to whether he or she is religous or not or which religion he or she subscribes to.
[/quote]
Your argument is full of holes.
- Find me one major religion that agrees with the murderers of people working at abortion clinics. Hint: there isn’t one. We all find murder (not necessarily killing, as will be discussed) morally reprehensible. I cannot think of a single society that saw the act of murder as a virtue.
[/quote]
I grant you that the people in charge of the christian religions have become more sane over the centuries. But if you take islam, killing of a journalist for making a caricature of allah is pretty cool with a lot of imams.
I was deliberately not talking about witches but about people with different (non-society-threatening) beliefs (e.g. protestant christians slaughtered by roman catholic christians and vice versa).
You have not brought up anything that would support a view that morality motivated by religion is better founded, more absolute than a morality chosen by atheists on more utilitarian grounds.[/quote]
Okay, I’ll bite. Again, the inquisitors of the day were working from their beliefs. I’m sure there were some who truly believed that what they were doing was better for that person than the alternative, and because of that it was not a murder but an execution. I think they were terribly misguided, just as I think the German people in the late 30’s and early 40’s were terribly misguided, and that many Islamists are terribly misguided.
However, if what you say is true, and morals are subject to the whims of mob and time, culture and location, then you cannot disagree with these actions, either, because they are just another cultures “morals,” no more right or wrong than your own. My guess is that you don’t believe this, though, do you?
[/quote]
The point was to show a morality based on religion is not superior to a morality based on common sense. But it seems moot to discuss this point further because your morality is not based on religion either, if I understand you correctly.
If you yourself believe there are absolute moral principles not justified by religion, why do I as an atheist have to justify for subscribing to these principles?
Back to the original topic of this thread: Ratzi seems to have a rather relativistic morality:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36325154/ns/us_news-faith/
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Thanks eph. It doesn’t surprise me, as an American who has now lived in Japan for 8 years, that the person who appears to actually be speaking the same language I am is one whom I assume is not even a native speaker of that language.
I think there are two ways to go at this. First, yes, I do believe that the existence of an absolute morality assumes, even requires the existence of a God. However, I’m not so sure you need to prove He exists in order to prove there is an absolute morality. I think that there is a ton of evidence that we humans do work off of a law that has always existed and is unchangeable (some will argue details and play word games, but no society will ever come to see lying, selfishness or greed as a virtue, or necrophilia as a noble pursuit, for example).
Indeed, I believe that if you dig deep enough, the morality will (and does) reveal God to us in that that morality is a reflection of His nature. A peek into who God really is, if you will.
Second, I think that the onus is first on the moral relativist to defend why his version of morality is justifiable, as moral absolutism (not to be confused with despotism) has a long history of producing some of the most stable, productive, “evolved” societies in our human history. Whereas you could argue that moral relativism either has not really been tested in earnest, or it has resulted in some of the most spectacularly evil societies our world has ever known. [/quote]
…firstly, altough i don’t mind defending my position, the reasons you gave in support of your position are clearly false. When you argue that societies [alledgedly] based on absolute morality have been the most evolved societies we’ve had, you clearly fail to take into account the horrors that accompanied the founding of those nations…
…i have to assume you’re talking about the USA, a budding society that violently and mercilessly slaughtered the indigenous peoples of that continent in order to make it it’s own. You can’t call that moral no matter how you stretch the definition…
…secondly, you can’t separate religion from society. The Catholic Church has been so influential throughout history, and made an [almost] everlasting impression on the Western world, but especially in light of current events, this church can hardly be called “moral”…
…i would even go as far as suggesting that the failure of the church and modern society to act morally, based on the religious absolute morality it holds so dearly, is proof in itself that no such thing exists. Now, before you pull the “born as sinners”-card from your sleave, you still need to show that there is a divine source of morality instead of a set of rules that humankind developed in order to structure a society in such a way that it prospers…
…for me personally, humankind is the only kind of animal that is able, within limits, to make a conscious choice whether an act benefits the tribe or not, and it’s this ability to choose that’s the foundation of morality. Many, if not all, acts of ‘evil’ are the result of a sick mind; a mind whose ability to make the appropriate choice is obscured by trauma or fascination…
…what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind…
[/quote]
Let me be more clear. I’m not arguing that humans (and by extension societies) who ascribe to a philosophy of moral absolutism are, themselves, morally pure. Absolutely not! I’m asserting that there IS a moral standard that does exist. I disagree that is has been taught to us, rather we discovered the existence of this law, and have learned that societies and individual lives work best when it is adhered to.
The problem comes with the fact that we ARE human, and our instincts and desires and also our tendency to justify our actions so as to avoid cognitive dissonance, lead us down the wrong path very often. That doesn’t prove, however, that an absolute morality does not exist.
Indeed, I would submit to you that these transgressions can actually serve as evidence of an overarching morality. When you look at the actions of, say, Alexander the Great, or the Nazis, or, okay, America, you have no problem saying that those actions are wrong. Am I correct?
But all of these societies, while perpetrating the actions with which you disagree, were making choices which they felt were for the benefit of their tribe. However, I’ll bet you would have no personal qualms about calling the actions in question wrong, or bad, perhaps even evil. Am I right or wrong?
If so, then what is the standard by which you are judging your morality? To assume that one society is doing something “bad” and another something “good” assumes that there is some standard by which we can make those judgments. So then, what is this standard?
It’s late here and if you reply tonight I may not get back to you until later, but thanks for arguing with me in good faith.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
No one is arresting the pope.[/quote]
But Mak would give himself a facial or two if it ever happened. He wouldn’t wipe it off for months.[/quote]
I would. The idea of someone who aids child molesters going to jail gets me off.[/quote]
I’m convinced it has a lot more to do with your hatred of religion especially Christianity than your hatred of child molesters. I do however think your hatred of child molesters is sincere. I also think it is a righteous hatred.
Having said that how do you reconcile your hatred of Christianity and religion in general with a sense of righteousness? How does one have a moral compass as you obviously do and yet eschew the foundation of morality?
As an atheist and evolutionist how is the morality of one animal (you or I) transcend the morality of another animal (the guy down the street who feels differently than you and I)?
How does all this work in your mind?
Where is your foundation? Why is it superior (to you) to that of the other guy, e.g., the pedophile and his foundation of morality?
These are all serious questions. No baiting. No sarcasm. No derision.[/quote]
Serious question. No baiting. No sarcasm. No derision.
Why do you hold atheists’ morality in contempt, when you yourself seem to adhere to Biblical morality only when it doesn’t interfere with your chosen lifestyle.
I seem to recall from my childhood that there were prohibitions against adultery and coveting thy neighbors wife in the Bible.