Originally posted by Enjolras
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Secular Morality?
Collapse
X
-
-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSecular morality by definition does not tell us what is actually right or wrong
Much has been made on this thread about gleaning moral principles from religion(s) and the difficulty therein. But I don't see how secular morality, in anyway, is a step up.
Sometimes religious people get a little confused by moral terminology and what the terms mean, so I often find it simply to use purely descriptive words such as "loving" / "hating" or "benevolent" / "malevolent" or "beneficial" / "harmful" because such terminology is less ambiguous than normative terms like "right" and "wrong". If you describe an act as "kind and loving" people immediately understand what you mean, and understand how you can have reached that conclusion without reference to God or to a holy book, whereas if you describe the same actions as "right" or "good" and mean "kind and loving" by those words, religious people sometimes get confused because they associate moral terminology with God or the Bible, rather than with positive/negative interpersonal interactions (which is what I consider ethics/morality to be about).
As Enjolras put it earlier in the thread, whether a interpersonal interaction is positive or negative in nature can be measured by "whether it will help people or cause them to suffer." You can phrase it in many and various ways, but at the end of the day what people are primarily thinking about when they talk about "ethics" and "morality" are interpersonal interactions and judging whether such actions are positive or negative. But as soon as you admit that's what morality is about, you've immediately got a yard-stick to measure it by, because we are all quite capable of determining (in general) whether an action is positive or negative - whether it helps or harms, whether it is kind and loving or malevolent and spiteful, whether it is compassionate or harmful. Whatever way you want to phrase it, the question always comes back to whether it is a positive interpersonal interaction or a negative one, and that is what morality is about, and God seems totally irrelevant to the issue.Last edited by Starlight; 02-18-2015, 06:41 AM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostIt's wrong because it harms those who are being enslaved.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostWell secular morality is a lot simpler: To the extent an action is motivated by love and brings benefit to people, it is "right" / "good" / "moral", and to the extent to which it is motivated by hate and brings harm to people, it is "wrong" / "evil" / "immoral". No deciphering of ancient religious texts is needed.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, but why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit? That may be a personal or cultural preference, but those preferences are no more correct or valid than their opposites.
Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.Last edited by Enjolras; 02-18-2015, 08:09 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostIf you don't think harming others for your own personal gain is wrong, there's probably not much else that can be said. We have reached moral bedrock, as it were: it just is good to be kind and is bad to be malicious.
Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut there is no moral bedrock Enjolras in a godless universe, nor can there be, there is only preference. And no moral preference is more correct than its opposite. You like lobster, I like steak.
Well Christ gave His life for our benefit, and not for His own. That should give you a clue about the character of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostIf you don't think harming others for your own personal gain is wrong, there's probably not much else that can be said. We have reached moral bedrock, as it were: it just is good to be kind and is bad to be malicious.
Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.
Ok, let's work with the definition of good as being helpful and kind to others. Why ought I be good?-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostYou like God's ways. I don't. Your preference is no more correct than mine. This is what you fail to see, seer: you have the same problem, just one step removed.
Christ also believed in a god who commanded genocide and slavery.Last edited by seer; 02-18-2015, 09:40 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostUnder Christianity, God has created humanity with a purpose. It is to worship and be with him. Goodness is defined as being part of his nature, and so we must be good to enter the kingdom. Otherwise, we would not be fulfilling our purpose/duty. Therefore, we ought to be good or we will simply get shut out of his presence in a state of shame. Thus, there are oughts (right) and ought nots (wrong).
Ok, let's work with the definition of good as being helpful and kind to others. Why ought I be good?
Is the only reason you are good because you think God is watching you? Would you immediately resort to murder the moment you thought there was no God?
Imagine you go out to a nice restaurant and notice 2 other tables. At one, the father excuses himself go to to the restroom. He warns the kids to behave while he's gone or he will beat the daylights out of them when he returns. At the other table, the father excuses himself as well, but instead of threatening punishment he tells the children to be considerate of others in the same way they would like to be treated themselves. Both sets of children obey.
Let me ask, which of these sets of children has a deeper, better understanding of morality?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostIs the only reason you are good because you think God is watching you? Would you immediately resort to murder the moment you thought there was no God?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNorth Korea practices secular morality, so did the former Soviet Union, China and Cuba of today.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, but why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit? That may be a personal or cultural preference, but those preferences are no more correct or valid than their opposites.
* Why is anybody interested in assessing whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative in nature?
* What motivations are there for people to perform positive rather than negative interactions with others?
I grant you that the answer to both of those questions is cultural. It's entirely possible to set up cultures that are so strict and rigid in their behavioral codes and so strict in their enforcement of their rules that it gets everyone into the habit of blindly following whatever the rules are. In such cultures where there is no freedom of choice, there may be little to no interest among the general population of even asking themselves whether any given action has positive or negative effects on others, precisely because they do not have a choice and so the question of whether it's a "better" or a "worse" choice than some other choice is nonsensical. The penalties for straying from their society's behavioral codes may be so serious that no one is motivated to stray from the set path in order to treat others better.
Such strict behavioral regulations are most common in societies that follow religious laws (eg Shariah law, levitical law etc), but we've seen it also in some of the extreme communist countries you've mentioned. However, in the modern West, where people have both freedom of choice and their decisions not dictated by religion, we've seen a resurgence of interest in the question of "given I can choose how to act, what factors ought I to consider in my choice?" People have had to think about what motivations are relevant to their actions precisely because they have a choice. A general consensus has formed that a really really important consideration is whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative in nature. Non-religious society as a whole has adopted moral terms such as "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to refer to the positive/negative nature of interpersonal interactions because that is what we have come to view as central in assessing whether a free choice that affects others is "good" or "bad". It's easy to see how people slipped into using this terminology because thinking of an actions as "good for others" or "bad for others" is easily shortened to saying the action is "good" or "bad".
If, to you Seer, "morality" simply means "the behavioral code of any given society" then of course you can get almost any behavioral code you like in any extremely-strict non-free society. However that's not a very meaningful observation: If you take away people's freedoms and force them to act in certain ways, then they do. That's sad for the people involved, but it doesn't tell us much about how humans behave when they are free to choose and what kinds of things they value when they are free."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut in the bigger picture the theist would say that our best moral instincts are tied to something more than mere biology, not simply the result of a biological accident of nature."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Enjolras View PostIt's wrong because it harms those who are being enslaved.
...viva la revolucion!"To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
392 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
161 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
683 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment