Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 1
view profile
History
moralityPage 1 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
What is it? and care to share how you figured out yours.... and where it came from and why you hold on to it?


(Mine came from paying attention to people (little big, brother/sister) who were REALLY in need. (not sarcastic) and how beautiful and willing they are/were. to fit in ).

I knew I did not want to influence them but accepted I just might. (I did not "like" the responsibility that I THOUGHT came with this so called responsibility/love.)

It's a human trait to look after (not for) in my opinion.


Care to share where yours come from?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 2:13:35 AM
Sure.

Mine is the result of a great deal of precision work of my own. I spent a great deal of intensive time, after my emotional existence was destroyed in a nuclear Holocaust long ago (natural result of following moral policies and bad advice collected during childhood), starting from the same basic point that Descartes did, and established my own comprehensive, and fully personally owned morality/philosophy/approach to life.

Although I am (naturally, being human) not that much different from lots of other people, everything I believe is my own personally pondered and built element. It's as though I drive a car that looks a lot like what everyone else drives, but every single nut, bolt, wheel, cog, shaft and panel is hand crafted in my own workshop.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 3
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 3:08:31 AM
Looking forward to those without morality telling us where they got their morality ...

Did you know that, if the hounds are chasing a fox and the fox has nowhere to go, but down a rabbitt burrow, and the rabbitts are currently occupying that hole, the fox won't bother them, in any way. But if the fox is hunting himself, comes across a rabbitt hole, finds rabbits in it, the fox will be dining in...

Lots and lots of birds, have 1 partner, there whole life....in fact quite a number of species do....
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 4
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 4:26:59 AM
I think my morality developed in the usual stages from amoral self-service to altruistic service thru the course of my life. A lot of variables went into making me the brilliant and wise old (oh yeah…and humble) Buddha that I am today.

Here's the breakdown by age:

birth to 1: nirvana stage - can't tell self from other - at one with universe
1-2: elementary ego development - learned self from other - became self conscious
2-19: ego inflation epoch - always got own way
(3+: started making friends - compared sizes of egos & penises (closely related))
(5+: started making girl friends - could only compare egos)
(6: stopped by court injunction from playing "doctor" - learned I can't always get my own way)
(7-13 - skipped school - turfed socialization in favour of learning stuff I wanted to)
(14: dropped out of school - precocious - already knew it all)
(15-19: social networking epoch - lots of friends - became group "doctor")

19-30: Trying to realize elementary ambitions - failing to get own way
31- 39: First existential crisis - lowered personal expectations, started considering others
40-50: Second existential crisis - self worth drops to zero - question meaning of life itself
51: 1st realization - must create our own meaning for life
52: 2nd realization - must always consider feelings of others
53: Started going to school again - focus on philosophy & moral theory
54: learned about natural law and justice - saw natural law as "silver rule"
55: realized other is more important than self - focused on service to others
56: saw true social evolution as move to "golden rule"
57: served by fighting for justice
58: served by fighting for everyone but me - starved after eschewing "commerce"
59: learned rules of commerce game and stopped playing
60: learned only way to win is not to fight at all - now live by golden rule and forgiving enemies.
currently: living with global family called humanity - WARNING: NOBODY SCREWS WITH MY FAMILY OR THEY WILL BE SPANKED!
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 7:39:21 AM
Funny, been thinking about that this weekend. Maybe because of the ongoing holy days. My family of origin's first response (when time allowed) was: please think about what you just did. I did. I do. And I honestly think we're all actually hardwired to know what's right, and what isn't. We just need to listen to ourselves. The religion guys got on the bandwagon for the power and/or geld.

Family story (I don't remember this one at all). At about two, I'd gotten out of my high chair and was headed for freedom. At the kitchen door, met my mother's legs (I didn't look up). Turned around, saying, Get back and eat, get back and eat, on the long trip back to the high chair. When finally seated again, said: I will, Mama! She had not moved nor said one word.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 9:50:07 AM
I think it is too easy to blur the line between the popularist meaning of "morality" and narcissism.

Generally I find that old world terms (which most fundamentalist religious terms fall into the category of) are best defined strictly within their etymology and original use. Words like "evil" meaning literally "unlife" in old english, its modern equivalent is closest to the word "ill" or "unwell" and nothing to do with supernatural malevolent forces except to say that somewhere between the 8th century and modern medicine (largely a product of the late 19th century) it was popular to start thinking of illnesses (eg. plague) as sent by malevolent supernatural forces. Even in classical thinking (pre-mediaeval era) being beset by illness or personal issues was as medical as supernatural and purely homeopathic medicine was practised alongside and separately to magic for healing, as shown by medical artefacts such as the Nippur tablets (ca.5000BCE). In old hebrew the role of words translated to "evil" was always intended as more medical, sociological and psychological than supernatural, the very place of Sheol (mistranslated as being Hell) actually describes a personal state of impoverishment, vagrancy and desperation, it is entirely an earthly state and makes no reference to any supernatural or otherworldly existence.

Yet among this primary source research I find a more accurate use of the word "evil" when making a reference. It describes nothing supernatural and should be used simply as the word "live" spelled backwards, as it was originally intended. Or in other words, simply replace with the modern equivalent of "unwell behaviour" describes its original use accurately, in a modern context. It draws a line in the sand for fundies who toss the term "evil" around when declaring enemies, like Westboro protesting abortion clinics I would refer to as unwell behaviour. People attending abortion clinics I would not describe as unwell behaviour. Ergo clearly the protestors are the "evil" in that scenario since they cause real world hurt which is unwell justified by abstract hurt which is not unwell but just imagined.

Similarly the term "moral" in etymology just means a point to a story, a lesson. Its modern definition of a code of behaviour or descript of character are popularist definitions which evolved outside the scope of original use later, like the term "evil" to become an entirely different meaning and losing all original reference to become a colloquial abstract.

In strictest definition practising a literal mimicry of biblical passage, eg. don't eat meat on fridays but you don't know why other than being a dogmatic rule, then you are not being moral at all, it is in fact amoral because you have lost the point to this practise. The intention is to remind one of the referenced parable in which this practise occurs, which is the moral of the story and if you're just going through the motions you hardly learned anything from it, so it is amoral.

I find most people use the popularist modern evolution of the term "moral" and forgot that you have to be able to explain why you act in a certain way rationally in order for it to be accurately described as moral. They just go through the motions and seem to have no idea by doing so they are in strictest definition, ruled by amorality.

Reason is key to being moral. If a teacher cannot explain why a student should do a thing, then that student is not being moral by following instruction, nor is the teacher by claiming it. Both are just being apes ordering and following each other for reasons of animist dominance, not very civilised. In order to be moral you must be able to explain why, rationally. That is what the term originally means in etymology.

What it most definitely does not mean is doing what someone tells you is right just because they told you.
In this context you could say most young people tend to be amoral or immoral, most older people should have learned to become moral. This is merely a reflection of accumulated experience and personal confidence, it actually has not the slightest thing to do with benevolence. It has much more to do with simple ignorance.

Immoral (irrational) or amoral (rationale without corroberative reference) doesn't mean evil (unwell). It just means uneducated or anti-intelligentsia.

As for me, I tend to do everything with demonstrable reason, I tend to corroberate all rationale. When I argue with an employer or friend they have learned to listen whether or not they agree or acquiesce, because there is always a clear reason and point of view they themselves will appreciate. This method of negotiating problem solving governs my life.
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 11:06:29 AM
oh, here it is. snuck up on me ya'll.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 11:41:38 AM
Thanks for that in depth etymology post, vanaheim. I always like to have things in historical perspective.

I think I disagree very slightly with you, in that I do think that most people still use the word 'moral' in the old way you describe. It's just that as you also correctly point out, many of them additionally confuse behaving in a moral way, with mindlessly (and in my opinion, lazily) following a set of instructions derived from someone else.

I have a lot of respect for many leaders of morality causes, even when I disagree with how they have concluded everyone ought to behave, precisely because some of the DO specify that those who follow them must do so from a direct and personal understanding and agreement as to why whatever it is, is the right thing to do.

But again, I'm very glad of your post also, because I think you also touch on another very important thing about morality:

That is, it is not a thing that you can achieve, and then put on your mantle like an award, or a permanent title. It's an ongoing, very active way of living and growing. In this way, morality ought to be seen as being the way Science ought to be understood: it is not an object, or even a subject matter. It is a methodology of learning and understanding, more than it is an accomplishment or a set of established facts.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 9
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 12:09:18 PM
Hey, my morality is from God.

As a kid, I grew up in a Christian home and I think I had this kid belief in God. Growing up, however, I started questioning it and so, I thought about it and considered other religions. (other than Christianity) I looked into other religions and learned some very basic things about other religions. Then I figured since I have "access" to Church and christian teachers, why not explore the Christian faith better. Strangely, I had some conflict when it came to this Christianity. I didn't have conflict with Buddism... nor Hinduism or other religions. With other religions, it was just me checking them out. But, with Christianity... there was conflict. I also noted that I wasn't alone. Anyways, I dove into the beliefs and I just wanted to figure out why exactly Christians believe in what they believe. The answer is a simple one and the most profound one of all "religions." The long answer is that there is a belief system that speaks about 100% truth and actually dares to take that stance and treat truth as an actual virtue. This belief system is actually no doubt good because unlike other "religions," it actually separates good and evil. And values ONLY... good. Like-wise, God's word values justice from the smallest to the worst crimes and sins. But, all that being said. The short answer is... the reason why people believe in truth, justice, and goodness... is because of Jesus Christ.

That's the key and answer to all problems in our eternal life and human life.

Oh, also, it helps that I prayed for God to give me a vision... and actually got one.

Thanks for reading
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 3:19:35 PM
We owe it to ourselves as respectable human beings, as thinking human beings, to do what we can to make humanity more rational. Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests.

- Isaac Asimov


We cannot return to a simpler world. Much of contemporary social criticism is made irrelevant by its refusal to face that fact.

- John Gardner


Man can either remain within his "accidental" reference frame and unquestioningly accept the meaning it has to offer, or he can boldly emerge from his psycho-epistemological cocoon and broaden his reality image. The need for man to break out of his capsule is crucial, for encapsulation may well be the essence of contemporary man's spiritual emptiness.

- Joseph R. Royce


Teilhard de Chardin emphasized that the more evolved human being is one who, on the one hand, becomes more highly individualized, and who achieves, on the other hand, a high degree of conscious integration with other men. The evolution of man thus reveals two simultaneous and complementary trends: one toward keener awareness of self, and the other toward more intensive cooperation and participation.

- Rene Dubos


There are no ethical truths; there are just clarifications of particular ethical problems. Take advantage of these clarifications and work out your own existence. You are mistaken to think that anyone ever had the answers. There are no answers. Be brave and face up to it.

- Donald Kalish


The true grandeur of humanity is in moral elevation, sustained, enlightened and decorated by the intellect of man.

- Charles Sumner


Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.

- H. L. Mencken


To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.

- Oliver Wendell Holmes


The person who "knows what he believes" can be one of the most dangerous individuals in our society. He has not only cut himself off from life in order to preserve his defenses; he would bring all his resources to bear upon us to do the same.

- ?


After all, when one tries to change institutions without having changed the nature of men, that unchanged nature will soon resurrect those institutions.

- Will Durant


I never liked comic books or super heroes, but I do like Batman. He is not an alien, a mutant, or a supernatural being from some other dimension. He doesn't have any super powers, and he doesn't want anything to give him righteousness or approval. He is a Man. He doesn’t do anything because it's easy, or popular, he owes allegiance to no one, no group or formal philosophy, and tries to use none as an excuse or justification. He is very consciencious and self-conscious, independently and as a Man. He does the work himself - physically, intellectually, emotionally, and morally...as a Man.

- a teenager at the mall


Of course, there is a crucial moral difference between those whose faith tells them to murder innocent people, and those whose faith tells them to respect life. But the difference is not something we can get from faith. The Islamic militant who believes he is doing the will of God when he flies a plane full of passengers into the World Trade Center is just as much a person of faith as the Christian who believes she is doing the will of God when she spends her days picketing a clinic that offers abortions. Faith cannot tell us who is right and who is wrong, because each will simply assert that his or her faith is the true one. In the absence of a willingness to offer reasons, evidence, or arguments for why it is better to do one thing rather than another, there is no progress to be made. If we try to dissuade people from becoming radical Islamic terrorists, not by persuading them to be more thoughtful and reflective about their religious beliefs, but by encouraging them to switch from one unquestioned religious faith to another, we are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs.

- Peter Singer


I first saw the light one night when I was sixteen years old. It was initially a very small light – the beam from the flashlight that enabled me to read under the bedcovers when I was supposed to be sleeping. That night I was reading a Little Blue Book that had been given to me by my boyfriend. It was Percy Bysshe Shelley’s The Necessity of Atheism.

I usually say that until the moment I opened the book I was a very religious young woman, but I suppose I had actually been outgrowing my religion for a while. For one thing, my boyfriend, a freethinker, had been giving me books like this and had been making me defend my religious beliefs – which I had difficulty doing to his satisfaction, and my own.

So I was prepared for Shelley and his atheism even though I didn’t know it. And, as I read, the light got brighter and brighter. Not from the flashlight I was reading with but from my mind absorbing what I read. Shelley’s logic shattered, in one memorable night, all the Sunday school lessons, Bible studies, and sermons I had been exposed to for years.

My first reaction was fury, a fury so strong that I risked confronting my father the next morning at breakfast. “You can’t possibly believe all that god stuff! Do you?” I demanded. “You’re an intelligent, educated man. God is as much a hoax as Santa Clause and not nearly as much fun. And only kids believe in Santa.”

His response made me even angrier. This pillar of the religious community, this trustee of the local Presbyterian church, this man who supported the church financially and attended services every Sunday told me calmly that no, he didn’t believe what the church taught. But he did believe that without the church there would be no morality in the world. Children learned right and wrong in the church, and adults lived righteous lives because they believed in God and heaven and hell.

I have since leaned that this attitude is not unusual among many who appear to be religious. They are less concerned with their own spirituality than with the conduct of others. They see themselves as superior, able to understand their religion as mythology and still conduct their lives morally. But they don’t think the ordinary person can do that, so they count on religion to keep the masses under control. Indeed, throughout history such “superior” men have used religion to regulate their slaves and subjugate women.

In my first heady release from religion I too thought it was the only thing that had kept me “good”. My life would change. I could sin. As a teenager, for me the three great sins were smoking, drinking, and premarital sex.

I told my boyfriend that I had seen the light. He was glad. He said he thought I was too intelligent to stay caught up in religion forever. Then I told him that we could sin together. We could drink, and smoke, and have sex. He looked at me as if I were crazy. I could do those things if I wished, he said, but he was in training. As captain of the high-school football team, a star basketball player, and a Golden Gloves boxer, he was always in training.

He wasn’t “good” because he believed in a god but because he wanted to be an athlete. Slowly it dawned on me that I hadn’t been “good” because I believed in a god but because I loved my family and friends, enjoyed my studies and my music, and wanted to prepare myself for all life’s possibilities.

I have never ever regretted the night I saw the light. I shall be ever grateful to the young athlete who gave me that Little Blue Book (and to Emanuel Haldeman-Julius, the publisher of Little Blue Books). I have stopped being personally furious with the Christian religion that duped me as a child, but I continue to be alarmed at religion when it hurts people, stunts their growth, and practices sexism and racism.

When I visit my family I go to church with them. I cringe through the Apostles’ Creed. How narrow and restrictive it is! I cringe through the hymns, too. I’m a pacifist, so “Onward Christian Soldiers” is repugnant. And “Amazing Grace” – which asks God “to save a wretch like me” – shows how destructive religion can be of self-esteem. It spreads guilt instead of joy. It denies nature and closes minds to scientific knowledge.

So except for an annual journey back to my roots in family and the Presbyterian church, I have not returned to religion, nor have I missed it. My associates since the night I saw the light have been people with whom I share common interests and goals, people trying to make this world better, not hoping for heaven. Like Abou Ben Adhem, in Leigh Hunt’s wise poem, they are moral because they love this earth and those with whom they share it. I trust they can say the same about me.

- Gina Allen
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 5:50:58 PM
^ There are many issues in human life which require us to try and understand how to "avoid acts that can hurt other people." (forgetting for the moment that it's not just about not hurting other people in the first place) When people get lazy and apathetic concerning understanding the how, and want to cling too much to simplicity, then that's one of the times when people become immoral.

Hence, from my above post -

We cannot return to a simpler world. Much of contemporary social criticism is made irrelevant by its refusal to face that fact.

- John Gardner
 bhawk01
Joined: 12/24/2011
Msg: 12
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 6:56:59 PM
First of all, just to point out, a fox will rarely fit down a rabbit hole, even warrens that are hundreds of years old may have large entrances but quickly narrow to the normal size. I have however while ferreting once had a barn owl bolt out into my nets....figure that one out.

What interests me about this is the case of koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, after finding the sink ripped from the walls the carer asked koko what had happened, she blamed the cat for doing it...
This suggests that animals know "right" from "wrong" and as such does not reserve morality to just us humans
 bhawk01
Joined: 12/24/2011
Msg: 13
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 7:01:14 PM
Christianguy...

You claim your morality is from god, from the bible...

Now if god is an infallible and an all knowing being, logically it follows that such a being could never change his mind about something, to do so would contradict both traits...
Therefore, with this you are saying you get your morality from a god that tells people to commit genocide, to rape, to kill children, to beat your slave as long as "it" does not die within 2 days?

You really believe that the biblical god is in any way a compass for morality?
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 14
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 7:23:28 PM

First of all, just to point out, a fox will rarely fit down a rabbit hole, even warrens that are hundreds of years old may have large entrances but quickly narrow to the normal size. I have however while ferreting once had a barn owl bolt out into my nets....figure that one out.

What interests me about this is the case of koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, after finding the sink ripped from the walls the carer asked koko what had happened, she blamed the cat for doing it...
This suggests that animals know "right" from "wrong" and as such does not reserve morality to just us humans


Stubbornness is a form of morality, hypocrisy is not.
 bhawk01
Joined: 12/24/2011
Msg: 15
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 7:27:31 PM
Where have i been hypocritical?
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 16
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 8:00:02 PM
Hey bhawk

I'm not sure what you mean by the infallible and all knowing thing. It sounds like something big. But, could you explain it better?

About the genocide thing, rape thing.. and killing children thing... and beating a slave. All out of context, I know your just twisting things because I'm fairly familiar with what your referring to. You've been lead wrong or you yourself are just taking things out of context, accidentally or purposely.

So, do I really believe the biblical God is a compass for morality. Absolutely, no doubt, God and his word shows him to be the one and only good God. Do you have conflict with that?
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 17
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 8:17:58 PM
In theory, there is morality in biblical teachings, in practice, there is not or has yet to be.
 bhawk01
Joined: 12/24/2011
Msg: 18
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 8:49:22 PM
Ok, laymens terms.. God knows everything, future and past, right and wrong....absolutely fecking everything...
He's infallible, cannot be wrong...ever. God is always right...

So how can such a god ever change his mind on any subject? firstly, he knows the future, so he would know he would change his mind. then you have the fact of something like murder, he says its right one minute the changes his mind, this cannot happen with him being infallible...

As to me "twisting" or being mislead, i shall quote the bible directly, that is after all the authority on this subject...

To save a loooong post i will post the passage numbers, you can read them yourself,

Brief examples of genocide:
Deuteronomy 7.1-2; 20.16-18 - The slaughter of the canaanites
Sodom and Gomorrah...
Noah Ark story, the flood was genocide

As for rape (apart from what happened during the canaanite slaughter)
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Zechariah 14:1-2
14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Dont forget this little gem
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Remember though, we are to kill the victims of rape

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Now if you have looked into the genocide you will see babies being slaughtered, further to that, 42 children thrown to bears for calling a prophet baldy!

It even tells you to kill disobedient children!

Now please enlighten me as to how this has been taken "out of context" bearing in mind christ openly endorsed the old testament and said it was still to be followed (i pointed that out in another thread in a post to you)
 MisterE2000
Joined: 12/24/2012
Msg: 19
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 12:01:29 AM
Its all from beliefs, Saudi Arabia will use the same condescending tone towards women retaining their dignity that hard line right or left wing politicians will use towards different groups of people.

The only conclusion you can make after considering there's nothing special about any culture is that morality is quite flexible to meet aggregate beliefs.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 3:13:07 AM
bhawk:

Aside from the fact that you have only a surface grasp of things such as the concepts behind biblical teachings and writings (i.e. your arguments are fallacious in the most fundamental of ways), PLEASE don't turn this into yet ANOTHER thread, debating between people who do believe, and those who don't. We have plenty of those already, and it is clear that no one will ever be convinced to switch sides, because neither side argues from the same concepts and starting points as the other.

Lets stay with stating how you came to have what morality you do, and leave off trying to convince each other that the others are wrong.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 21
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 8:01:45 AM





IgorFrankensteen msg 21

bhawk:
...

PLEASE don't turn this into yet ANOTHER thread, debating between people who do believe, and those who don't.


Igor, you should place the responsibility for turning the thread into a belief system debate on the person who turned it into one, specifically:



ChristianGuy777 msg 9

The short answer is... the reason why people believe in truth, justice, and goodness... is because of Jesus Christ.

That's the key and answer to all problems in our eternal life and human life.


He can get his morality out of jesus, a box of cornflakes or a tube of ky and no one is going to care one way or the other. However, when he passes judgement on where the morality of other people comes from or what it's based on, which he is doing when he claims " the reason why people believe in truth, justice, and goodness... is because of Jesus Christ." then he is invalidating the source(s) of everybody else's morality if they are not based on _his_ and only _his_ source.

It is not only reasonable but, entirely justified for anyone, even everyone, to point out to this self righteous believer that his high horse isn't that high and, that it may very well be significantly lower than somebody else's foundation of morality, including truth, justice and goodness. Additionally, no matter what he believes, his belief certainly isn't "the reason why people believe in .. proselytization here".

The subject of this thread, per the OP and your own words, is about where one's morality comes from. It is not an invitation for anyone to "in-lectrinate" jesus and the bible onto others by implicitly claiming that jesus is the reason for people embracing truth, justice and goodness.

bhawk's reply is entirely justified. His source of morality is not based on jesus and it is as valid and, in the opinion of some, significantly more so, than any religious source, jesus included.

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 8:16:26 AM
I disagree.

A religious person answered the thread with his honest response to the question. His horse is no higher than anyone else's, just because of his beliefs. There is no more need or justification to react negatively to his version of where his morality comes from, than there would be for someone to attack me, for where mine came from, or you for yours.

Frankly, I can perceive not a jot or a tittle of difference between self-righteous anti-theists, and self-righteous theists, when it comes to declaring that the other side deserves to be attacked just for expressing themselves.

Back to the original intent of the thread, I say, no matter who thinks who did what first.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 23
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 8:24:55 AM






A religious person answered the thread with his honest response to the question.


His "honest" response included a clear invalidation of everyone's source of morality that wasn't jesus.



ChristianGuy777 msg 9

The short answer is... the reason why people believe in truth, justice, and goodness... is because of Jesus Christ.


His "honest" response is a negative judgement on all other sources of morality. All the "honesty", "truth", "justice" and "goodness" historically expected from that source.

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 8:37:08 AM
So what? His response might feel like an attack on your beliefs, but then a statement of your beliefs feels like an attack on his.


Again, lets please stick to the thread as specified, and just say where and or how we came to have whatever morality we do. Leave this pro-anti-religion stuff for the other threads.

I can tell you for sure, that if we don't, a mod is quite likely to kill this thread entirely.
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 8:56:07 AM
Just to get it on record, and just speaking for myself -

How a thread is titled, and what's in the original posting, has influence on how active and sustaining the thread is. Myself, I've been wishing for something on the general subject of morality. And I wanted it so that people could visit, observe, read, reflect on the subject for themselves, and learn, whether they post or not, as well as for folks to post instead of just sit back and read. This can't happen if the thread fades and isn't visible so that people can't notice that it even exists. (I'm not going to do too much myself until it warms up, achieves some sustainability, and I see that my time won't be wasted) So, I myself don't mind so much if things meander a bit. I think that a little meandering would both be a tool to help keep it alive and active, as well as allow for full expression, exploration, and learning in this area. Yes, certain of us are tired of particular religious aspects of these discussions, yet that is exactly part of what we need to address, concerning morality. I'm one to be pretty darn critical of certain posts along these lines, but I also like when it's put on the table, because that's part of what we need...to get it out there, in the open. What's prudent is to respond to these views however is deserved, applicable, and productive...but we are also (obligated?) and free to not be limited by this - we can discuss into whatever other directions we choose, despite posts of religious spins. Someone wants to post and make it about religion or beliefs...so what? We do our part to take it into other more productive directions.

This concludes a message from the super duper jibber-jabber broadcasting service
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality