WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

But morality at it's core is purely subjective. There isn't an objective morality at all, and this is where things get tricky because what's disagreeable to the "majority" is what's wrong.

Harm isn't always wrong though, look at wars. We justify them through subjective morality. This in of itself pretty much elimiantes any sort of objectivity when it comes to morals. Plus not to mention it's a bit strange to think that there is an all encompassing moral compass or set of morals especially in the context of so many interpretations of said morals.

Nothing is black or white, rather just many different shades of grey.

 

What I took from those answers is that it is a matter of faith. There is a rationale and logic underpinning it, but there is a rationale and logic underpinning my atheist belief system. So neither is more valid than the other.

All morality is subjective. You believe it is externally objective, but you cannot prove it any more than you can prove the existence of God. I believe it is subject to what makes for functional human relationships, but I cannot prove that is the "right" standard, only that it is a functional one.

Basically, people are punished for what is disagreeable to the victim (hence the "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"). Christian morality is upheld by people (God does not intervene as an external objective force), so people are punished not for what is disagreeable to them but for what is disagreeable to others also.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE&t=11m27s

^^ it has a t jump in the link.. think he does a good job of summing up the atheists hard line.. that's neils spiel right there

here I thought was a pretty good debate, but look at the title 'piers morgan being a dick to penn jillette'.. he's asked if he cheats on his wife- I think there was some teller there.. my gaydar went off like sigfried and roy levels- and look at how his mouth is open in the first frame.. jus sayin

 

The assumption of an imputed morality not subject to human whims is tied to the a priori assumption of the revelation of a divine Creator. That itself is inherently logical, but the assumption is not-especially within the greater framework of society. But the issue becomes, we come with a set understanding of right and wrong. A small child can tell you that something isn't fair. You can't always expect them to come up with a logical quantification of that wrong, but then again you can't ask that of most people.

It seems that we as humans have some type of morality imprinted upon us from the womb. It's not as keen and developed as what we get later in life, certainly. It's also not a strict black and white system always, but there's something there. Just as a child inherently understands who Mom and Dad are, so we understand certain things to be right and wrong. I've often wondered why that happens. Within the framework I operate within, it would seem that we are marked by our Creator with enough understanding to not beat each other to death before we can learn something about the rest. Nexxo would probably argue that an inherent moral compass is something selected for by evolution as a way to keep the species from extinctifying itself. Who's right? Both and neither, possibly. Some things we don't know. But we make sense of it how we can.

To me, it makes a case for an overarching morality underpinning existence, to someone else it may not. Either way, my kid's got PT so I'll see what comes of this after while. This therapist is unfortunately not very respectful of our time.

 

Well, we know that children as young as two show altruistic behaviour, so a sense of morality certainly seems to be there right from the moment that a child differentiates itself from others (as evidenced by the observation that it is at age two that children learn the joys of saying "no" and being defiant --it is when they realise for the first time that they are their own person and can actually disagree with their parents. They then go through a phase of disagreeing almost arbitrarily and abundantly as they play with this new concept).

Babies can recognise basic emotions: joy, fear, anger, disgust, and we also know that they have some theory of mind already. A baby's acting on an inanimate object is very different from their interaction with a person. They will for instance engage in 'protodeclarative pointing' --making eye contact and pointing at something to fix the other's attention on it-- with a person, but will not do so with a doll. Experiments with children as young as four shows that they have a basic idea of another person's perspective --and feelings.

Small children also already have a sense of fairness and unfairness. This may come from their attachment experience, which is based in trust. In being able to trust a parent, a child has a sense of mattering and of security. Behaviour that betrays trust is deeply unsettling, and generates fear and upset. Betrayal of trust feels wrong. The young healthily attached child will usually respond to a perceived betrayal of trust with crying and rage. In a healthy attachment relationship the parent responds by acknowledging the child's upset, soothing and apology or atonement. When the child does something wrong it will experience punishment or rejection by the parent. This also feels upsetting, so it mirrors the parent --it tries to restore the balance by apology or atonement. The child develops concepts of what is fair/deserved, unfair/undeserved and of guilt/shame and atonement.

All this of course it necessary for any animal that grows up in a complex tribal group where you have to be empathic and be mindful of others' thoughts, feelings and intentions. We are wired to be social and empathic --and hence, to have some altruism.

 

Children are very in tune with life and creation itself. Children are very aware.

 

When Obama announced that he supported gay marriage, the press interviewed a few people in the street. A steel worker stated that he had been against the idea, until his nine-year old daughter said: "I think it's unfair that some people cannot be together with the person they love and be happy".

Out of the mouths of children, eh?

 

Perhaps they are equally valid (or invalid), but I don't agree that they are equivalent logically. The morality that stems from the presupposition of an inherently moral and good God is logically coherent because both the origin of morality and the definition of good and evil are accounted for; conversely, on your view, there is no logical origin for morality nor is there any one standard by which to determine what should be considered right or wrong. I see the framework and rationale behind your morality, but it's not logical - you simply jump from "morally neutral" to "moral/immoral" according to your sensitivities; the gap is bridged with arbitrary subjectivism and "morality" is conjured from "non-morality."

The tricky part here is that your axiom "harm is wrong" aligns with the Christian worldview, in which harm is intrinsically wrong. It is also fitting to note that God's manifestation of himself in human form was first and foremost as an altruist, so when you equate "altruism" to "morally good" you are being more godly than perhaps you realise.

Children may very well know the difference between right and wrong, but that does not mean they are always right!

 

My statement " Children are very in tune with life and creation itself. Children are very aware. " had your mind go to gay "marriage".

Interesting.

That depends on where your perception lies.

If you view a triggered response as imprinted by the school system onto the child as a response made by the child, when excluding the childs own ability to think and extract meaning, without having thoughts, ideas, and morals forced upon the child, as being out of the childs "mouth" itself? Then yes, I grant you that it would be out of the mouth of the child. Of course, the nine year old child apparently made the statment.

You have to take the whole picture into account.

 

The only difference in moral formation between theists and atheists is theists have an extra reward/deterrant system.

Ultimately there is no universal goal; the most even religion can offer is some paradise in the afterlife but there's no indication as to what comes after then.

 

If by my "sensitivities" you mean my beliefs in which the origin, logic and consistent standards of morality lie in the functionality of human relationships, then yes; just as how you leap from non-morality to morality by your leap of faith in the existence of God. That too could be regarded as a conjuring trick but I would not denigrate it with that label.

Why thank you. I think that the tricky part is that people gravitate to the belief system that resonates with them. You are not a good person because of your Christian beliefs; you became a Christian because you are basically a good person. Perhaps God made you thus, or perhaps you were just raised and socialised to value and engage in functional interpersonal behaviour.

 

So children are in tune with creation and very aware, except when they say something with which you disagree.

Interesting.

 

I explained the cause for her statement, you're free to either accept or dismiss it.

 

Just noting how it seems incongruous with your previous statement. Perhaps we should just refrain from sentimental stereotypes and projections, and accept that children are human beings in the process of becoming, warts and all.

 

Being in tune with life and creation itself does not stand or fall on voiced opinions, imposed or otherwise. A three year old will be very much in tune with life and creation itself, a three year old has yet to be corrupted. That said. I wasn't making sentimental stereotypes or projections either.

 

No offence intended. And this is getting very complicated - belief in morality and belief in God are clearly not the same thing, since everybody in the world has some sort of moral awareness and accepts that there are such things as "good" and "bad."

My argument is not so much that you are conjuring morality from non-morality; it's actually the other way round to begin with: you start with the perceived intrinsic human morality which appears quite obviously to be part of the human physiological makeup, and most people accept that it is (many of them atheists). However, because you disbelieve in God and therefore cannot logically believe that actual, objective morality is imprinted on human physiology, you have to devolve any perceived intrinsic morality into ingrained sociobiological behaviours (such as altruism) which gives you your non-moral starting point. Seems like a very long way round, considering your ultimate goal is to demonstrate that these non-moral sociobiological behaviours are in fact moral.

Why not just accept that humans are intrinsically moral, and be an inconsistent atheist like so many others? It would make my life easier.

I just realised the time; my bed is calling, so I must absquatulate bedwards.

 

Think of it like an emergence phenomenon, like consciousness.

 

Personally I think this works much better without the final comma.

 

A repost of my own post in this very thread. If morality is apparent in other mammals are they too made in God's image?

btw even if you don't want to watch the whole video the part from 13.10 is hilarious!

 

that guy is leading the blind really.. the experiments don't prove anything

have any of you ever watched a dog show? dogs are extremely smart, even birds.. it's like these people never owned animals before

you notice his claims- like the monkey refusing to eat until the other got a grape.. but no video proof xD that's typical atheist there.. I could train any of those animals to do any of those things- the key point they are missing with these tests is we are not even close..

we can see ourselves in the universe and understand who we are.. we are very unique- these tests show nothing but basic animal training.. even his monkey rope video showed 2 monkeys getting food- he claims one didn't want to eat to make his point on cooperation.. but then monkey ate it anyway.. really there was only one monkey up there, and it wasn't on screen.. like pointed out in another thread- even an animal like a dog cannot see itself in the grand scheme of things..

videos like this just reinforce my belief- well not really reinforce because I'm not pushing god away.. get reading guys- and helping in your community.. you don't want to be caught with your butt cheeks all over the place come the apocalypse

think about this too.. they can clone animals such as cows and sheep- but they can't clone people.. maybe we do have souls.. that would be the missing ingredient.. no life found on mars? I thought life was inevitable if you listen to atheists talk about it..

then we have the story of christ- not to mention people who make a difference in the world.. like I know someone personally who graduated from mit- he was going to go into business.. make a ton of money- that's where his head was at

then god told him to become a teacher.. I don't know the exact details.. but I talked to him about it- he said he told him to become a teacher so that's what he did.. this isn't like you xD.. you know top 2%.. now he teaches calculus in hs and seems very happy with his family..

I'm just going by what I've seen.. and christ is real- you guys can have your monkey status