Questions on morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Probably not, because I have a God given conscience.

Now would you care to answer my question since I have answered yours?

Okay, let's keep it simple.

We both have a conscience which prevents us from torturing babies for fun. You agree so far I hope?

The only difference between us seems to be that my conscience (not given by God) means I wouldn't torture babies for fun, while your God given conscience 'probably' wouldn't have you torturing babies for fun. Is that correct? (Or do you want to retract the word 'probably? )

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, let's keep it simple.

We both have a conscience which prevents us from torturing babies for fun. You agree so far I hope?

The only difference between us seems to be that my conscience (not given by God) means I wouldn't torture babies for fun, while your God given conscience 'probably' wouldn't have you torturing babies for fun. Is that correct? (Or do you want to retract the word 'probably? )

Ok fair enough. Which of the following would you say best describe your morals?

1. you got from society,
2. they are evolving
3. the are common sense
4. they are self determined

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok fair enough. Which of the following would you say best describe your morals?

1. you got from society,
2. they are evolving
3. the are common sense
4. they are self determined

An amalgamation of all 4, with other factors added in. (Family, education, experiences, altruistic tendencies, empathy, the capacity to love and care for others).

Again, to keep it simple, my general morals are unlikely to be identical to the next chap, but when it comes to the big ones like murder or torturing babies for fun, we are probably on the same page.

You really do need to get your head around the notion that even without God a human still has a conscience and a heart. If God adds something to the equation, then i'm pleased for you. But you are going down a dangerous path if you think humanity will start eating each other if they stop going to church.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
An amalgamation of all 4, with other factors added in. (Family, education, experiences, altruistic tendencies, empathy, the capacity to love and care for others).

Again, to keep it simple, my general morals are unlikely to be identical to the next chap, but when it comes to the big ones like murder or torturing babies for fun, we are probably on t ...[text shortened]... dangerous path if you think humanity will start eating each other if they stop going to church.

If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

I'm a member of a tennis club. To be part of that club I have an obligation to adhere to the club rules. There will be repercussions if i don't. Society operates in a similar fashion.

You do appear to have ignored my previous explanation however that society is only one of the many factors to contributes to the morality of all of us, yourself included. So, for example, if my current society suddenly decided it was okay to murder, my moral sense that it is wrong to murder wouldn't change and I wouldn't be obliged to do so. (Though might have to leave the club/society).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'm a member of a tennis club. To be part of that club I have an obligation to adhere to the club rules. There will be repercussions if i don't. Society operates in a similar fashion.

You do appear to have ignored my previous explanation however that society is only one of the many factors to contributes to the morality of all of us, yourself incl ...[text shortened]... uldn't change and I wouldn't be obliged to do so. (Though might have to leave the club/society).

But isn't your moral sense also derived from society? What makes you sure that your moral sense is right?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But isn't your moral sense also derived from society? What makes you sure that your moral sense is right?

My moral sense is what it is.

The best any of us can do is adhere to our conscience and seek to treat others how we would want to be treated ourselves. Is a God really necessary to hold such an outlook?

I'm happy to accept that morality can change over time and vary from society to society, and that what's 'right' for me might not be right for someone living on the other side of the globe. And why is this?....Because morality comes from man, not God.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Anyone who believes there are no moral absolutes believes by default that all views on morality are equally valid. Else you would have to say that one subjective opinion is more valid than another. Which makes no sense at all.

Rejecting the concept of moral absolutes in no way necessitates the belief that all views on morality are equally valid. Please explain your reasoning for this rather strange conclusion.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My moral sense is what it is.

The best any of us can do is adhere to our conscience and seek to treat others how we would want to be treated ourselves. Is a God really necessary to hold such an outlook?

I'm happy to accept that morality can change over time and vary from society to society, and that what's 'right' for me might not be right for ...[text shortened]... ng on the other side of the globe. And why is this?....Because morality comes from man, not God.

If your conscience is shaped by the environment in which you live and not placed there by God, how do you know for sure that it is morally sound?

So you agree that torturing a baby for fun may not be right for you but could well be right for someone else?

If you say that people from a different society should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Rejecting the concept of moral absolutes in no way necessitates the belief that all views on morality are equally valid.

Yes it does. Moral absolutes didn't just happen without a cause. Otherwise they're not absolute. As one who has rejected the concept of a moral law giver one's perception of what moral absolutes infer leaves one with the idea that all views on morality are equally valid, none being absolute.

Without an absolute standard of morality all views are equally valid.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Rejecting the concept of moral absolutes in no way necessitates the belief that all views on morality are equally valid. Please explain your reasoning for this rather strange conclusion.

If you reject moral absolutes I would assume your stance is moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

If this is not the case with you feel free to tell me what your moral stance is.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

An atheist can be appalled at the torturing of a baby.

You should know that this typical theistic moral argument is not -

"Can a person be good without believing in God?" but
"Can a person be good without God?"

"The Moral Argument"
YouTube&t=5s

Originally posted by sonship
"Can a person be good without believing in God?"

What could you - of all people - possibly tell anyone about morality, sonship, when the "ultimate morality" and "perfect justice" you cite is the never ending torture-in-a-furnace punishment your angry vengeful god figure supposedly hands down to the billions and billions of people who don't believe in him. You have no moral compass.

Originally posted by FMF
What could you - of all people - possibly tell anyone about morality, sonship, when the "ultimate morality" and "perfect justice" you cite is the never ending torture-in-a-furnace punishment your angry vengeful god figure supposedly hands down to the billions and billions of people who don't believe in him. You have no moral compass.

Good luck finding your 'moral' way using a 'moral' compass with no fixed cardinal points.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Good luck finding your 'moral' way using a 'moral' compass with no fixed cardinal points.

The "fixed cardinal point" of sonship's supposed "moral compass" is that it is the "ultimate morality" to torture someone for a thoughtcrime and to do so for eternity. You - on the "Hitler" thread - defended the genocide portrayed in Joshua 6:21 in the ancient mythology you subscribe to (not to mention your bizarre downplaying of the Holocaust). Presumably that is one of your "fixed cardinal points". It's interesting that the two of you, all puffed up with your superstitious beliefs, should take it upon yourself to lecture people on the "universality" of your personal opinions.