03 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am still missing something here.
The point I am trying to make is that if you don't have an absolute unchanging point of reference, by which to differentiate between right and wrong, it means that you cannot have an absolute moral standard, and for that matter morality will simply be a matter of personal preference to the individual.
Since the atheist does not have an absolute moral reference point, adultery for example could easily be excused.
Who ( as in human beings) has an absolute moral standard? I think you are saying that no-one has? Is that right?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
03 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOh, I see what you are missing..
I am still missing something here.
Who ( as in human beings) has an absolute moral standard? I think you are saying that no-one has? Is that right?
Let me put it this way. I believe that there is an absolute moral standard set by God, since philosophically I believe that God alone is the only unchanging absolute. I believe that there was never a moment in time where God did not exist. I believe that God by definition is a necessary being. And thus it is not possible for God not to exist.
Hence I follow an absolute moral standard which is set by God. Thus philosophically God is the absolute basis for my morality.
03 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis is all smokescreen. It is clear that regardless of what you claim you moral standards to be set against; absolute, relative, make-believe etc. what really matters in all this is how well you, as a person, match up to those standards. So, seeing as I know plenty of atheists who are far more honest and true to their moral code than you are to that of god's, I suggest you stop playing the fool here and go out and learn what it really means to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
Oh, I see what you are missing..
Let me put it this way. I believe that there is an absolute moral standard set by God, since philosophically I believe that God alone is the only unchanging absolute. I believe that there was never a moment in time where God did not exist. I believe that God by definition is a necessary being. And thus it is not possible ...[text shortened]... al standard which is set by God. Thus philosophically God is the absolute basis for my morality.
EDIT: And please, answer the question: Do you consider the blatant and murderous god of the OT to be the same moral being of the NT?
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, I don't believe an atheist would have an absolute moral framework. Having an absolute morality would require a belief that absolute truth exists. I think most atheists (those i've met) would lean towards Relativism. Many atheists follow the beliefs of Humanism.
Does the atheist have an absolute moral framework? Or does morality simply depend on personal preference?
Humanisms exclusion of God requires moral relativism.
John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.
Your questions rest on the (bigger) question of absolute truth .. does such a thing exist?
It's impossible IMO to argue against logically.
04 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerso what is the moral standard that you follow? What is it? How do you live day by day? What are 'your' rules?
Oh, I see what you are missing..
Let me put it this way. I believe that there is an absolute moral standard set by God, since philosophically I believe that God alone is the only unchanging absolute. I believe that there was never a moment in time where God did not exist. I believe that God by definition is a necessary being. And thus it is not possible ...[text shortened]... al standard which is set by God. Thus philosophically God is the absolute basis for my morality.
Edit: As in how do you connect with your absolute morality, in reality? Don't tell me you don't know how you live, or try to live, your life day by day. What is your set of codes, or ideas even?
Edit2: Sorry Starrman, I don't mean to get in the way between you two, but it seems we are both trying to nail jelly to a plate.....
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandGood question .. how does one "connect" with ones morality?
so what is the moral standard that you follow? What is it? How do you live day by day? What are 'your' rules?
Edit: As in how do you connect with your absolute morality, in reality? Don't tell me you don't know how you live, or try to live, your life day by day. What is your set of codes, or ideas even?
Edit2: Sorry Starrman, I don't mean to get in the way between you two, but it seems we are both trying to nail jelly to a plate.....
For me it's that little voice inside.
My conscience.
The trick is to stay connected and trust it.
Our "codes" may be set at an early age. What we're taught; our role-models, mentors; those we look up to and respect.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe point you continue to miss is that you and your honest atheist friends actually have no absolute basis for their moral code, and thus they can live just exactly as they please to.
This is all smokescreen. It is clear that regardless of what you claim you moral standards to be set against; absolute, relative, make-believe etc. what really matters in all this is how well you, as a person, match up to those standards. So, seeing as I know plenty of atheists who are far more honest and true to their moral code than you are to that of g ...[text shortened]... : Do you consider the blatant and murderous god of the OT to be the same moral being of the NT?
By accusing God in the OT to be blantant and murderous you are assuming a moral law. Whose is it? If it is God's own moral law, you need to remember that He is the moral lawgiver is is justified in punnishing those who disobey His moral law.
04 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy do you persist in claiming that moral relevancy has no basis? It is just not correct. The basis is not absolute, but it still exists and consequently your conclusion is invalid.
The point you continue to miss is that you and your honest atheist friends actually have no absolute basis for their moral code, and thus they can live just exactly as they please to.
By accusing God in the OT to be blantant and murderous you are assuming a moral law. Whose is it? If it is God's own moral law, you need to remember that He is the moral lawgiver is is justified in punnishing those who disobey His moral law.
Your second paragraph is just nonsense. I'm not assuming anything, he is blatant and murderous by the definition of the words. If you cling to the notion that a man can reach out his hand for natural fear of the ark falling off a cart and be struck down dead, or that god can kill the innocent child of David's sin, whilst allowing David to continue living with no punishment, and still claim god is a justified and moral being, then your moral code is twisted and cancerous. Your claim to absoluteness means nothing if that absolute point is amoral. To claim that these attrocities are allowed because god makes the rules makes you far more dangerous than any atheist who's moral code is set against social agreement. You make me sick.
EDIT: These 32 million were all justified deaths? And you think atheists are bad? http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
04 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerWhat dj2becker (and possibly you) are claiming is that either he follows or thinks there is a moral code that is superior by virtue of it being connected to an absolute (either) morality or truth. What I am trying to do is find out how that is not fluid by nature of it being his 'conscience'.
Good question .. how does one "connect" with ones morality?
For me it's that little voice inside.
My conscience.
The trick is to stay connected and trust it.
Our "codes" may be set at an early age. What we're taught; our role-models, mentors; those we look up to and respect.
If we examine claims like that closely we quickly find out that they are usually just that - claims. We can be guided by our inner voice, but where are the checks that ensure we are not like Mark Chapman (or similar).
The test is by looking at the code, which dj2becker refuses (so far) to share with us. How can that be a moral code? It is what he thinks it is at the time? That is not a reasonable claim.....
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI think some may TRY to follow a formal moral code, be it Christian, Jewish or whatever, but we all end up making hundreds of decisions daily that contradict those same codes.
What dj2becker (and possibly you) are claiming is that either he follows or thinks there is a moral code that is superior by virtue of it being connected to an absolute (either) morality or truth. What I am trying to do is find out how that is not fluid by nature of it being his 'conscience'.
If we examine claims like that closely we quickly find ...[text shortened]... t be a moral code? It is what he thinks it is at the time? That is not a reasonable claim.....
In other words, I think people aspire to certain codes, but we all fail.
We fail because we're human, egocentric and vulnerable to all sorts of temptations.
The key is in being able to forgive ones self and get back on track. We all screw-up (sin?), we all break whatever code we may say we live by .. the flesh is weak.
I DO believe some moral codes are superior to others and I do believe in absolute truth.
Most of Western Culture is based on a Biblical moral code .. 10 commandments, etc., with heavy influnces of secular, progressive thought.
A personal moral code is in constant flux IMO. As we grow and hopefully, mature, we edit, update and revise out thinking .. again, hopefully, for the better.
The "Golden Rule" is a good starting point IMO.
Talking it is one thing .. walking it 24/7/365 for a lifetime is not possibly IMO.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandMy moral standard is based upon the moral code given by God. Have you ever heard of the Ten Commandments, for example?
so what is the moral standard that you follow? What is it? How do you live day by day? What are 'your' rules?
Edit: As in how do you connect with your absolute morality, in reality? Don't tell me you don't know how you live, or try to live, your life day by day. What is your set of codes, or ideas even?
Edit2: Sorry Starrman, I don't mean to get in the way between you two, but it seems we are both trying to nail jelly to a plate.....
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanWould you be so kind as to give me a philosophical outline as to how you arrive at a moral universe without a moral first cause.
Why do you persist in claiming that moral relevancy has no basis? It is just not correct. The basis is not absolute, but it still exists and consequently your conclusion is invalid.
Your second paragraph is just nonsense. I'm not assuming anything, he is blatant and murderous by the definition of the words. If you cling to the notion that a man can r ...[text shortened]... ? http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
I will handle the rest of your post once you have done this.
04 Feb 07
This seems a pretty good starting point
http://www.universalmoralcode.com/
.............................
DO NO HARM.
Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not cheat.
Do not falsely accuse others.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not commit incest.
Do not physically or verbally abuse others.
Do not murder.
Do not destroy the natural environment upon which all life depends.
DO GOOD.
Do to others what you would like them to do to you.
Be honest and fair.
Be generous.
Be faithful to your family and friends.
Take care of your children when they are young.
Take care of your parents when they are old.
Take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
Be kind to strangers.
Respect all life.
Protect the natural environment upon which all life depends.
04 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI wasn't aware the universe had morals. Did I miss a particular physics lesson or something?
Would you be so kind as to give me a philosophical outline as to how you arrive at a moral universe without a moral first cause.
I will handle the rest of your post once you have done this.