Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe? Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right? And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe? What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.
    Morality is not based on any rational consensus of agreement. This sound like laws in a democracy where people make laws that are based on the foundation of morality of that culture. Morality is more fundamental in human behavior and evolves based on the needs to survive as a family and community. There is no individual determination of belief or what is right or wrong in the morality of a culture unless one chooses to break the moral codes to a degree that they get punished. If the morals are not followed by most in a culture the family and community do not survive. Minor infractions of morality are tolerated as long as it does not threaten the survival of the community.

    In my previous response concerning 'abortion.' I rely on the Divine guidance of the spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith, and not the variable nature of morality for definitive guidance. The evidence indicates that abortion one way or another as a moral value does not contribute to the survival of the human species.

    I consider Divine Laws and guidance not specifically related to the morality of cultures, but the morals of a culture have a more positive influence on the harmony, peace and success of the family and community when based on Spiritual Laws and Guidance.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-07-2018, 01:25 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Morality is not based on any rational consensus of agreement. This sound like laws in a democracy where people make laws that are based on the foundation of morality of that culture. Morality is more fundamental in human behavior and evolves based on the needs to survive as a family and community. There is no individual determination of belief or what is right or wrong in the morality of a culture unless one chooses to break the moral codes to a degree that they get punished. If the morals are not followed by most in a culture the family and community do not survive. Minor infractions of morality are tolerated as long as it does not threaten the survival of the community.

      In my previous response concerning 'abortion.' I rely on the Divine guidance of the spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith, and not the variable nature of morality for definitive guidance. The evidence indicates that abortion one way or another as a moral value does not contribute to the survival of the human species.

      I consider Divine Laws and guidance not specifically related to the morality of cultures, but the morals of a culture have a more positive influence on the harmony, peace and success of the family and community when based on Spiritual Laws and Guidance.
      You seem to have a problem butting into conversations that don't include you. I don't care what you think about the matter at this point. I am trying to get JimL to clarify his view. He seems to hold contradictory views and I am wanting him to clear it up for me.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        You seem to have a problem butting into conversations that don't include you. I don't care what you think about the matter at this point. I am trying to get JimL to clarify his view. He seems to hold contradictory views and I am wanting him to clear it up for me.
        At present this is an open forum, and not limited on who responds to what posts. As long as I respond coherently and ah . . . do not call people names, nor insult them.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          No way I'm obfuscating Jim, you can't have harmony without common moral beliefs, and you can't have common moral beliefs without an objective source and authority for those beliefs. As long as you have different moral opinions about things like gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity, etc.. the role of government, differing religions or political theories you will have disharmony.
          Oh but you are obfuscating, and you continue to do so. Like Sparko you continue to ignore answering the question that I asked you and instead you keep repeating to me what you believe. We already know what you believe.
          So, maybe now you can answer. Is adherence to the moral against theft beneficial to society or not? Even a simple yes or no answer would do at this point seer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe?
            That's correct, for example, stealing from each other is not in the best interests of society whether you or anyone else agrees or not. You see, it has nothing to do with what any one individual believes.


            Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right?
            Correct again, good or bad behaviors are either in the best interests of society or they are not, regardless of what people believe.

            And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe?
            Most people with the attribute of sound reason will come to the same conclusion that certain behaviors, such as theft or murder are detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to themselves as a member thereof. But again, that fact isn't dependent upon peoples agreement.

            What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.
            It is not an objective standard in the sense you people think of an objective standard. There is no moral code from a vengeful deity out there, at least there is no need of one, what there is, is logic, sound reason, and the results of putting those attributes to use. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is a common sense behavior which is beneficial to you and to all of society, but as a moral it has no objective existence out there.



            I can't answer because 1. Your view of morality doesn't make any sense. 2. Under your theory of morality it doesn't matter what I believe anyway and 3. I forgot what you even asked me.
            Oh sure you can Sparko, I understand you don't want to answer, but you surely can.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              So if a group of Christians began saying that adultery if a moral good, you would see that as a valid interpretation of the command that thou shall not commit adultery? Really Tass?
              I'm not saying that any interpretation of scripture is necessarily valid, just that there exist many, often contradictory, interpretations of scriptures.

              I explained that already Tass.
              All you've done is explain away the need to execute adulterers et al, despite explicit biblical injunctions. In short, you've interpreted scripture to conform to the moral values of today...as has historically always been the case.

              The point in the Pew poll Tass is that the majority of those who study and know Scripture better believe that homosexuality is immoral, it is the Biblically illiterate that disagree.
              That's no argument. All you're saying is that you're right and those that disagree with you (the majority in this instance) are wrong.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              From Scripture.
              I.e. your interpretation of scripture. Gotcha!
              Last edited by Tassman; 08-07-2018, 08:35 PM.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                I can't answer your other questions until you settle on a consistent theory of morality, not some hodgepodge of conflicting statements.
                Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. In short, it's the goal of a moral code, i.e. survival of the species, that is important not the moral code in and of itself.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  I'm not saying that any interpretation of scripture is necessarily valid, just that there exist many, often contradictory, interpretations of scriptures.
                  No Tass, like with adultery, the texts concerning homosexuality are clear. If I interpreted "thou shall not commit adultery" as meaning you can commit adultery you would rightly say that changed the plain meaning of the text. And you know that would be the case.



                  All you've done is explain away the need to execute adulterers et al, despite explicit biblical injunctions. In short, you've interpreted scripture to conform to the moral values of today...as has historically always been the case.
                  That is false Tass, go back and reread what was discussed about the Mosaic Civil Code and the fact that those penalties were applied in the context of a Theocracy.



                  That's no argument. All you're saying is that you're right and those that disagree with you (the majority in this instance) are wrong.

                  Again, you have no idea what the majority of Christians worldwide think. Second, yes, the majority of Christians who actually study scripture believe homosexuality is immoral. Biblically illiterate don't.
                  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 JimL View Post
                    Is adherence to the moral against theft beneficial to society or not? Even a simple yes or no answer would do at this point seer.
                    That is the point Jim, so what if a particular behavior benefits a society? Why is what benefits a society a moral good? If enslaving a small minority benefits the majority, is that a moral good?
                    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 Post
                      That is the point Jim, so what if a particular behavior benefits a society? Why is what benefits a society a moral good? If enslaving a small minority benefits the majority, is that a moral good?
                      If you can enslave a small minority then you can enslave anyone, ergo it is not beneficial to society and is not a moral good. But answer the question please, is adherence to the moral "thou shalt not steal" beneficial to society and thus beneficial to the members thereof, or not?
                      Last edited by JimL; 08-08-2018, 10:17 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        If you can enslave a small minority then you can enslave anyone, ergo it is not beneficial to society and is not a moral good. But answer the question please, is adherence to the moral "thou shalt not steal" beneficial to society and thus beneficial to the members thereof, or not?
                        Jim, so you would punish the minority of thieves for the good of society! And you are not making sense, we enslaved a small minority for decades without enslaving every or any one. Enslaving a minority, punishing a minority of thieves all for the good of society!
                        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 JimL View Post
                          That's correct, for example, stealing from each other is not in the best interests of society whether you or anyone else agrees or not. You see, it has nothing to do with what any one individual believes.
                          Then how can you determine that "stealing is not in the best interests of society?" if nobody believes it is? Who gets to judge what is best for society?


                          Most people with the attribute of sound reason will come to the same conclusion that certain behaviors, such as theft or murder are detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to themselves as a member thereof. But again, that fact isn't dependent upon peoples agreement.
                          But you just said that it didn't matter what people believed. So what "most people" think doesn't matter. This is your contradiction I was talking about.



                          It is not an objective standard in the sense you people think of an objective standard. There is no moral code from a vengeful deity out there, at least there is no need of one, what there is, is logic, sound reason, and the results of putting those attributes to use. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is a common sense behavior which is beneficial to you and to all of society, but as a moral it has no objective existence out there.
                          You have some nebulous standard of "good" that doesn't depend on anyone even knowing what it is or agreeing on it. How can it be determined to be correct then?






                          Oh sure you can Sparko, I understand you don't want to answer, but you surely can.
                          Answer what? I really don't remember what you asked at this point.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            But you just said that it didn't matter what people believed. So what "most people" think doesn't matter. This is your contradiction I was talking about.

                            Yep...
                            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 Post
                              Jim, so you would punish the minority of thieves for the good of society! And you are not making sense, we enslaved a small minority for decades without enslaving every or any one. Enslaving a minority, punishing a minority of thieves all for the good of society!
                              I see you continue to refuse to simply answer the question seer, so I will continue to ask it. Is adherence to the moral against theft beneficial to the peace and harmony of society or not? A simple yes or no answer will do.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Then how can you determine that "stealing is not in the best interests of society?" if nobody believes it is? Who gets to judge what is best for society?
                                Prima facie.

                                But you just said that it didn't matter what people believed. So what "most people" think doesn't matter. This is your contradiction I was talking about.
                                And it doesn't matter. What I said is that sound reason would bring most people to the same conclusion. You see, it's not that difficult to understand, unless, because of your agenda, you really don't want to understand. But I think that even you can figure out that the moral "thou shalt not steal" is beneficial to the good of society. Or does your lack of reason not allow you to see that?


                                You have some nebulous standard of "good" that doesn't depend on anyone even knowing what it is or agreeing on it. How can it be determined to be correct then?
                                Actually it is those of you on the other side of the argument that have this nebulous standard of "good" because we on this side know exactly what we mean by "good" i.e. that which is ultimately in our best interests as individuals living together in community. You don't know what you mean by good, other than that it exists out there as some sort of meaningless objective standard.




                                Answer what? I really don't remember what you asked at this point.[/QUOTE]

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X