20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWow, I wake up this morning and am very pleased to see that you have finally reached your 'destination', dj2! But sadly, it seems that you have failed to trick others into acknowledging the existence of god by this long-winded debates of absolute truth/morality.
Firstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my desires? As a member of the minority, I may ity, people will lose all motivation to sacrifice personal satisfaction for duty to others.
Hmm... absolute moral standard set by god. It must have taken you a long time to conjure up that one, huh? Y'know, dj2, Osama bin Laden blew up buildings and killing thousands because he's obeying god's standard. He perceived that these people are sinful people and they are a threat to his god. I don't see any good from obeying the standard set by god in this case. After all, god himself went on a killing spree in the past, only in a bigger scale -- he almost wiped out the entire human race in the flood. (That is, if there is god at all, and if there is any truth in the stories of the bible at all).
21 Feb 07
What I am about to write has probably been written already by someone else. I can't be bothered reading all the bull poo that has gone before this post, but from the glimpses I did read, we're in serious doo doo. The fact is that God or no God, humans are destroying themselves, we've ostracized the weak, needy, infirm, old.... I could go on.
The obsession that we have with catergorizing ourselves and others has put us in the mess we are all in, white or black, christian or muslim, we are all on the same metaphorical ship, and i honestly think we're sinking, and we don't even realise because we're all too preoccupied with who gets to drive the goddamed thing.
So this is what I have to say, instead of pulling in opposite directions, surely the best thing to do is to realise that there's stuff we can all do to make this world a better place.
My take home message is.... And you hippy haters out there are gonna hate this, why not look around you and appreciate what you have, and then think of ways that you could make others around you appreciate the world around them too, without draggging God, Allah or the little green man from Oberon 5 into it. Peace out you crazy chess people.
This public annoucment was brought to you through the power of 12 cans of Cider!! I do likes me cider!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerSome of that is true but I do not believe that it as clear cut as you put it. Human behavior is very complex.
Firstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my desires? As a member of the minority, I may ...[text shortened]... en it helps them to accomplish their own ends or when the risk of getting caught is too great.
If there is no God, this indifferent approach to law is perfectly reasonable - but utterly fatal. The refusal to recognize God as the absolute authority behind right and wrong will eventually cause society to destroy itself. We can see the beginning of such disintegration in the United States as the recognition of God is increasingly pushed out of public life. The Founding Fathers understood that the law by which nations should be governed was more than a mere social contract. The Declaration of Independence explicitly recognized God as the absolute behind the law when it proposed separation from England in order to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature;s God entitle them."
But now that God as being pushed out as the absolute behind law, we see the authority of the nation's constitution disintegrating. The courts seem determined to accede to individuals bent on destroying any overarching law that stands between them and satisfaction of their own cravings. With no allegiance to God, people will increasingly chip away at the restriction of law to gain more freedom to follow their own wants and urges. The ability of law to restrain these urges will wear down, and individuals will come to have little or no allegiance to society as a whole. All their attention will be focused on themselves - their own rights, wants, and pleasures. Without the pressure of a true and absolute morality, people will lose all motivation to sacrifice personal satisfaction for duty to others.
All personal opinion. You have no evidence to back it up. Personally I believe that the US is one of the more religious societies in the world so your claims of social decay there would actually point towards a problem with religion and not atheism.
You also do not say whether it is a specific religion that is required to 'hold society together' or just any religion. In a Muslim society is it the same God providing the laws? What about Buddhists who don't believe in God? Are you claiming that belief in God is necessary for society and that no society has ever succeeded without one? I think you will be hard pressed to find any evidence for such a preposterous claim.
Also even if society does decay it doesn't prove the existence of God.
However none of your post addresses your claims that my stance on morality is in any way illogical.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot at all. Your entire argument was so fundamentally flawed and based on assumptions it was just silly.
Not at all. Your entire argument was so fundamentally flawed and based on assumptions it was just silly.
A sense of "right" and "wrong" has no requirement to be divinely inspired at all - that's making the worst kind of assumption. Evolutionary theory predicts it, and is more parsimonious.
So that is your refutation? You can do better than that...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe find a sense of morality in every society around the world, from the most primitive to the most advanced. We find it in the records of all past cultures as well as in all present cultures. And the morality of all these societies is surprisingly similar, no matter how widely separated by time, geography, cultural develpoment, or religious belief.
Some of that is true but I do not believe that it as clear cut as you put it. Human behavior is very complex.
If there is no God, this indifferent approach to law is perfectly reasonable - but utterly fatal. The refusal to recognize God as the absolute authority behind right and wrong will eventually cause society to destroy itself. We can see the b ne of your post addresses your claims that my stance on morality is in any way illogical.
So how do you explain a moral code that is so consistently present in all societies? How do we explain a sense of morality that gives virtually every sane person on the planet a sense of right and wrong? Why should such a moral sense exist at all within an atheistic framework? Without God as the source, any rational explanation for morality collapses.
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis one is easy. We're all of the same species, with the same basic
We find a sense of morality in every society around the world, from the most primitive to the most advanced. We find it in the records of all past cultures as well as in all present cultures. And the morality of all these societies is surprisingly similar, no matter how widely separated by time, geography, cultural develpoment, or religious belief.
So ...[text shortened]... atheistic framework? Without God as the source, any rational explanation for morality collapses.
needs and living under very similar circumstances here on earth, so we're
bound to invent very similar set of moral guidelines. What's so strange
about that?
Now, show me a polar bear with our sense of moral behaviour and I'm
impressed since polar bears don't really need it with their superior
strength and open icecaps to roam on. We humans must stick together
to survive in nature; to be able to drop a bear for food, and since this is
required we've become very social animals indeed. For any social
gathering to work rules of conduct are required. Those rules will be pretty
much the same for any society, out of necessity. Even a hermit will find
him/herself in need of services offered by society (whether civil or
primitive) at times.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerEvolution explains the 'sense of morality' very well. It is a rational explanation and it doesn't 'collapse'. In fact I personally think that the observed phenomena matches such an explanation far better than it matches your 'from God' hypothesis.
We find a sense of morality in every society around the world, from the most primitive to the most advanced. We find it in the records of all past cultures as well as in all present cultures. And the morality of all these societies is surprisingly similar, no matter how widely separated by time, geography, cultural development, or religious belief.
So ...[text shortened]... atheistic framework? Without God as the source, any rational explanation for morality collapses.
In fact the behavior of the God described in the Bible does not even come close to matching the sense of morality found in most people. If taken as equivalent to a person, the Christian God would be judged highly immoral by the vast majority of human beings. However many Christians explain that away by saying that God is exempt from his own 'moral code'.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenWow! Interesting. So basically you are saying that morality is a set of rules that humans have devised for self-preservation through trial and error over the millenia of history. And basically nothing about these rules are absolute. They were not handed down by some mountaintop god but grew out of humanity's own common sense and practical thinking. The idea behind moral behaviour is not conformity to some overarching truth, but simple survival. The rules we call morality are simply the guidelines we have found to work in a society huddled together for mutual protection against a hotile universe. Society forms governments to determine the exact shape of the morality that will best preserve it, and the government expresses the moral will of the people by passing laws to enforce the standards for belief and behaviour.
This one is easy. We're all of the same species, with the same basic
needs and living under very similar circumstances here on earth, so we're
bound to invent very similar set of moral guidelines. What's so strange
about that?
Now, show me a polar bear with our sense of moral behaviour and I'm
impressed since polar bears don't really need it with ...[text shortened]... im/herself in need of services offered by society (whether civil or
primitive) at times.
Is that more or less how you see it? 🙂
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerMore or less until the last two sentences. Some governments (not all) do attempt to "expresses the moral will of the people by passing laws to enforce the standards for behavior." They tend to be a bit more relaxed when it comes to belief. They also try to adopt a policy of "if it doesn't harm others then it is OK". This is not quite the same as enforcing a moral code.
Wow! Interesting. So basically you are saying that morality is a set of rules that humans have devised for self-preservation through trial and error over the millenia of history. And basically nothing about these rules are absolute. They were not handed down by some mountaintop god but grew out of humanity's own common sense and practical thinking. The ide ...[text shortened]... to enforce the standards for belief and behaviour.
Is that more or less how you see it? 🙂
But then every government is different and differs over time so it is rather hard to generalize.
[edit] by the way animals have morals too.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut you agree that morality was invented to preserve society?
More or less until the last two sentences. Some governments (not all) do attempt to "expresses the moral will of the people by passing laws to enforce the standards for behavior." They tend to be a bit more relaxed when it comes to belief. They also try to adopt a policy of "if it doesn't harm others then it is OK". This is not quite the same as enforcing ...[text shortened]... over time so it is rather hard to generalize.
[edit] by the way animals have morals too.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is pretty much exactly the way I see it. We act according to morals
Wow! Interesting. So basically you are saying that morality is a set of rules that humans have devised for self-preservation through trial and error over the millenia of history. And basically nothing about these rules are absolute. They were not handed down by some mountaintop god but grew out of humanity's own common sense and practical thinking. The ide ...[text shortened]... to enforce the standards for belief and behaviour.
Is that more or less how you see it? 🙂
for the long-term benefits, not just for our own self but those around us,
simply because we've discovered that we need it. Otherwise we would
stand alone against nature. If you've ever been without food or shelter in
a large (I'm talking can't walk through in days) forest with harsh cold
winds and many predatory animals around you, you'll see the logic
behind social connection and the conception of moral guidelines.
Also, if you look at how things used to be, you'll see that we first worked
in units of families. One family could do pretty much anything to another
family if in conflict, that they wouldn't do to their own. Things are pretty
much the same way still, but nations are much, much larger than the
simple family. The basic concept is still the same though. Morals are
defined to help us associate within a given society and to help us find
wise solutions to problems within the group and in relation to other
groups of people. That's all they really are, and only a fool (or someone
who's outcast or can't accept certain rules for some reason) would go
against the moral guidelines completely, as it will put them outside of
society, unprotected and unsheltered (or as it stands for "higher"
civilisations - in jail).