[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
[/quote]
I understand the risk of home invasion. I decide it’s worth it. Knowing the risk I arm myself with a gun.
I don’t understand the risk of home invasion. I believe the occupants will be happy to see me, if they’re home. I bring a pie they can eat while I acquire their electronic goods and jewelry.
[/quote]
You may be able to find someone who thinks itâ??s okay to perform home invasions, but that doesnâ??t mean we canâ??t identify that itâ??s wrong, and why itâ??s wrong. All opinions are not of similar significance. We can identify that home invasions do not lead to desired results (a productive society). Your opinion on home invasions will not be taken seriously until you can demonstrate that it will lead to desired results.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.
All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.
Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.
[/quote]
Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
[/quote]
I understand the risk of home invasion. I decide it’s worth it. Knowing the risk I arm myself with a gun.
I don’t understand the risk of home invasion. I believe the occupants will be happy to see me, if they’re home. I bring a pie they can eat while I acquire their electronic goods and jewelry.
[/quote]
You may be able to find someone who thinks itâ??s okay to perform home invasions, but that doesnâ??t mean we canâ??t identify that itâ??s wrong, and why itâ??s wrong.[/quote]
You can identify that it inconvenient to your own risk vs reward assessments. But not that it’s morally wrong. The point is that reason can be employed to carry out home invasions, if one understand the, and is willing to accept, the risk.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.
Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]
This makes sense. So without God morals would not exist? Or just be defined a different way?[/quote]Without the triune God of historic Christianity NOTHING would or could exist. Morality is one component only. Logic is another.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.
All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.
Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.
[/quote]
Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]
So why do you think atheism is picking up now, right now, at this particular point in history?[/quote]
Because it promises freedom from morality. Get pleasure in life, die. A bump in the road in a longer human history and future.[/quote]
This is extremely idiotic. It’s picking up because of all holes that are in all religious doctrine that have been exposed. A lot of this information has become widespread because of the Internet. The claims your religion and all others make are not demonstrable and unjustified, they are taken on blind faith. Couple this with continuous science discoveries and you have an extremely miniscule probability any religious claims are true.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.
All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.
Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.
[/quote]
Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean here.[/quote]
Well, you say religion ‘co-opts’ something almost inherent. It’s must not be very self-evident to have been co-opted and twisted by religion from it’s blissful pre-theistic state.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.
Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]
Because really really really really believing something = knowledge.
[quote]Makavali wrote: If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?
Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]
I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.
Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?
[/quote]
Still dodging I see. It’s a hypothetical that you refuse to answer - and I know why.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.
[/quote]
I understand the risk of home invasion. I decide it’s worth it. Knowing the risk I arm myself with a gun.
I don’t understand the risk of home invasion. I believe the occupants will be happy to see me, if they’re home. I bring a pie they can eat while I acquire their electronic goods and jewelry.
[/quote]
You may be able to find someone who thinks it�?�¢??s okay to perform home invasions, but that doesn�?�¢??t mean we can�?�¢??t identify that it�?�¢??s wrong, and why it�?�¢??s wrong.[/quote]
You can identify that it inconvenient to your own risk vs reward assessments. But not that it’s morally wrong. The point is that reason can be employed to carry out home invasions, if one understand the, and is willing to accept, the risk.
[/quote]
I can label and identify actions that do not lead to a productive society as “immoral” and actions that do as “moral”
And let’s be fair here. If you’re claiming morals were handed down by god, you have to prove a) God exists b) and he/she it is handing them down to us (does the holy spirit have a sex?)
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Because really really really really believing something = knowledge.[/quote]Then when are you gonna knock it off? Your whole existence is blind baseless faith. I emailed Elder Forlife a little while ago. Maybe he’ll come back and help you understand that. Best Pagan I ever encountered.
I can label and identify actions that do not lead to a productive society as “immoral” and actions that do as “moral”[/quote]
And the next guy can start from a different foundation, “how do I get what I want.” You’ve already started with a value judgment, that we must aim for a productive society.
[quote]And let’s be fair here. If you’re claiming morals were handed down by god, you have to prove a) God exists b) and he/she it is handing them down to us (does the holy spirit have a sex?)
[/quote]
I don’t have to prove that God exists. I can’t prove human beings have unalienable rights. I can’t prove that kidnapping and selling children is evil, either. You either accept it or not. Do you believe that such an action is evil, regardless of human opinion or ability to enforce?
[quote]Makavali wrote: If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?
Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]
I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.
Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?
[/quote]
Still dodging I see. It’s a hypothetical that you refuse to answer - and I know why.[/quote]
Of course you know why. It’s an impossible question.
Ask it properly, Mak. If you do, I’ll answer it. But I want you to ask it correctly. You’ve been dodging it. Here, I’ll give it to you. “If you thought the existence of a deity was unlikely…” Fill in the rest. Now ask it.
And the next guy can start from a different foundation, “how do I get what I want.” You’ve already started with a value judgment, that we must aim for a productive society.[/quote]
Sure, unfortunately when you live in a society of many, and we are all participants in building the moral system, you can’t do that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t have to prove that God exists. I can’t prove human beings have unalienable rights. I can’t prove that kidnapping and selling children is evil, either. You either accept it or not. Do you believe that such an action is evil, regardless of human opinion or ability to enforce?
[/quote]
I think it’s wrong because I can’t think of a reason of where it’s not immoral. I am open to having my mind changed, but only if it’s accompanied with sound arguments.
[quote]Makavali wrote: If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?
Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]
I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.
Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?
[/quote]
Still dodging I see. It’s a hypothetical that you refuse to answer - and I know why.[/quote]
Of course you know why. It’s an impossible question.
[/quote]
That’s how many hypotheticals work though.
If I asked you would you fight crime if you developed super powers similar to superman would you give this same cop out answer?
It doesn’t matter How you got these powers, it’s a hypothetical.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ask it properly, Mak. If you do, I’ll answer it. But I want you to ask it correctly. You’ve been dodging it. Here, I’ll give it to you. “If you thought the existence of a deity was unlikely…” Fill in the rest. Now ask it. [/quote]
You would do well in war, not a single bullet or weapon of the enemy be able to touch you.