This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new

People like Stalin don't believe in God so why would he raised his fist to God? He probably think that he himself is God.

As to morality and any religion. Let us say that religion is Christianity.

Whatever moral code Christianity and its Bible preaches... forget for a moment it being "good" or "bad" morals... whatever that code is, it only applies to Christians. Or the good moral code as Christian sees it.

In a free society, Christians can practised their, or their God's, version of what is moral and virtuous (just as long as it doesn't harm or harrass anyone one else).

But to then go a few steps further and claim that Christian morals are the best and most objective; that without Jesus and his teachings there is no good moral code. Well, that's going to raise a few fists in other people who believe just as strongly in their own moral code, or in their own God's moral teachings.

So a Christian might ask "what would Jesus do". What Jesus would do... that's often based on the teachings and biases of preachers and the person themselves. So it might not even be what Jesus would actually do... I mean, Jesus wouldn't waste his life making all the money in the world but lose his soul, would he? Freaking Trump and "good Christian" like him does.

What would an Atheist ask when they face a moral dilemma? First, can I get away with it. Second, who's paying for this, and I it be blamed on someone else.
 

In any given situation there would be an action which would be the most moral action as defined by objective outcomes.

Now I am not saying that it’s possible to know what that action would be, or that’s it’s possible to Create a world where only those moral choices are made, but it is true that in any given situation the most moral action exists.

Individual humans can be right or wrong in their opinions on what is moral, but again that doesn’t change what the actual objective morality is any more than an opinion on the number of jelly beans in a jar changes the actual number.

But we can use logic to try and get as close as possible to the best moral outcomes in the situations we are presented, and that will give us better outcomes than just differing to an old book of absolute rules.
 
grah33 said:
And what of those who will have future employment problems? Your side never said anything . They don't seem to care about anyone but their own side. I guess it's good from an evolution stand point.
Click to expand...

What side are you talking about?

And when have I ever said I wouldn’t want to help people with employment problems?

In fact in the automation thread I laid out my belief that eventually society would have to provide a base living wage for everyone once automation reduces he need for most human labor.

I have also said that social safety net are important, and that I am in favor of public education, health care, foreign aid etc etc

But again what is this “side” you think I am on?
 

So you are upset because less people stand up on the bus, but yet we now give women equal pay and don’t tolerate sexual harassment.

Racism is reducing
Gays are now more accepted
Women have more rights
Violent crimes and murders are reducing
We haven’t had any world wars

So many things are improving, I wouldn’t get hung up on the “good ole days” because if you truly look back, they weren’t that good for a lot of people.
 
Value Collector said:
In any given situation there would be an action which would be the most moral action as defined by objective outcomes.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that there are objective outcomes to begin with. IMO, what we regard as moral is relative to where we currently are in our evolutionary progress.

The laws of physics as far as we know apply everywhere in the universe and have been unchanging since the beginning of the universe (save perhaps for the first few microseconds). This we know by observation as we can see and measure things that are far away and things, by nature of the time needed for light to reach us, that are in the distant past.

But there is no basis for assuming morality is similar. What is moral has changed over time and is different in different parts of the world. Every attempt by Harris and Delahunty to define an objective morality is simply an interpretation of morality as viewed in the here and now in the context of a Western philosophy in an advanced non-subsistence society. What they define as moral may not be when viewed through a different lens.

This doesn't mean that we cannot develop a moral framework that would help us as a means of regulating society. It just means that like as has been since recorded history, it would be based on the "best" morality of the time.
 
Value Collector said:
Here is a talk on the superiority of secular morality for those interested.

Click to expand...
Rather than reiterating my reasons for disbelief in the existence of secular morality, I have attached a video, showing an excerpt from a debate, where a theist elucidates upon the key reason, underlying my stance on this topic:
 
sptrawler said:
Just because you have more people surviving, doesn't in itself mean things are getting better, when those who survive have less respect for those preceding them.
Click to expand...
The takers are breeding two to one to the givers. Bad stock breeding more bad stock.I imagine a family of six on the dole would pull in a couple of thousand per fortnight.
 
grah33 said:
Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. ...
Click to expand...

Unless a religion or a survival tribe instructs obedience to its idea of benevolent morality, individually it is really a luxury that affords itself once food, family, health and safety needs are met.

We see evidence of guilt driven morality by peer groups such as the Greens. The new Labor Party has also redirected itself from being the voice of the white working class, with it's fair go moral compass now firmly pointing to social litter rather than it's austral/anglo foundations of solidarity by numbers.
 
"Guilt driven morality... " of the Greens. Would like to know your reason.

The Green membership numbers have been growing considerably in the last couple of years, 40% being female between 20 to 40 years and the majority, School Teachers, nurses and post graduates. The age group that will have a big impact on their own children also. And why, because they are worried for the future for thier offspring. Not sure about the religion bit.
 

What you are talking about, are social change that have been forced on society by implementing laws, or Government intervention.

What I'm talking about, is moral belief and behaviour that was a part of our social structure, when children were brought up to show restrain and respect.

http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/whats-behind-the-rise-in-assaults-on-teachers-216504.aspx
 
Social change has happened because society has wanted it, which means society as a whole is getting better.
 
What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?
 
bellenuit said:
What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?
Click to expand...

Well it's funny that a lot of so called Christians don't like the idea of giving shelter to refugees while other Christians go out of their way to help them.

There is a Left and Right in the church apparently.
 
bellenuit said:
What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?
Click to expand...
"Do unto others..."
Is to me, the over arching principle.

I do also have some admiration for the following:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
"He who draws the sword, dies by the sword."
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God, that which is God's."

And although it may not necessarily be specifically a moral teaching, the mustard seed sized, mountain moving belief, is one that speaks strongly to me, of the metaphysical aspect of our existence.
 
From my life experience, it seems those who have a standard / morals (both religious and non religious) , have a smoother path in this life, and less problems come their way. And in social groups, whoever acts nobly tends to get respected by everyone , and people want to be their friend. There's something attractive in being self-effacing.
 
Just wondering what our staunch Catholics, Anglican et think should be done about the refugee issue, and what biblical teachings guide you to your feelings on this matter ?
 
cynic said:
"Do unto others..."
Is to me, the over arching principle.
Click to expand...

There are various interpretations of this rule but it is more commonly stated as: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"

But why should we say that is a key expression of Christian morality when the same sentiment was expressed by many others prior to Christ (if he existed)?

"Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do". This is from the The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, from Ancient Egypt about 2000 BC.

"That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self". This is from Zoroastrianism, a pre-Islamic Persian religion and is dated from 600 BC.

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful". Buddhism, 500 BC

"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others". Confucianism, 500 BC

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others". Socrates 400 BC

Some of the above are religious based and some are secular based. But I would think that the "do unto others" sentiment is something that we as a species would easily have come to see as a good moral principle to live by, purely through our empathy with others. I think VC has on many occasions explained that empathy is the main driver of morality.

As I have said in a previous post, religious morality as expressed in their "good books" is just the secular morality of the day. Christian morality is no different. And as secular morality changes with our understanding of ourselves, so too does religious morality, reflecting the secular change. One only need read the passages in the Old Testament where God demands the killing of chieftain because the latter spared the good people of a tribe that God had ordered to be slaughtered. Compare this to the New Testament and we certainly are not dealing with an unchanging Judaeo/Christian morality as some suggest.
 
bellenuit said:
I think VC has on many occasions explained that empathy is the main driver of morality.
Click to expand...

So what is the driver of empathy ? Psychopaths can become very successful people while having virtually no empathy for others. Don Burke for example didn't seem to give a rats about how anyone else felt and he led one of the highest rating tv shows in Australian history.

Empathy is not a pre requisite for success, in fact it may be a barrier in some cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...