| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2007 03:45:43 PM · #976 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Do you then believe that you are moral? If so, are you moral not because you believe in your moral actions, but because you are afraid of what will happen should your actions be interpreted by God as immoral? |
Actually I don't think I'm that moral. I would not include myself in the "most" that Bear_Music originally referenced. I will say, that I try to be more moral, and thet the gains I have made towards being moral are due in part to a fear orf divine judgement. However, I personally have a long way to go.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 03:49:32 PM · #977 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Do you then believe that you are moral? If so, are you moral not because you believe in your moral actions, but because you are afraid of what will happen should your actions be interpreted by God as immoral? |
Actually I don't think I'm that moral. I would not include myself in the "most" that Bear_Music originally referenced. I will say, that I try to be more moral, and thet the gains I have made towards being moral are due in part to a fear orf divine judgement. However, I personally have a long way to go. |
I wonder then what would make you more moral, what areas need improvement. (Incidentally, don't answer if too personal. I'm frankly surprised you answered the original question. I'm not sure I would, since it's open to mischaracterization by others less kind than me. :P ) |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 03:52:55 PM · #978 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And if there is no source for morality outside ourselves, then wouldn't EVERY decision if followed back far enough have come from someone thinking for themselves? |
Whatever text you follow was written by SOMEbody, and your sense of morality is shaped by those around you. However, kids will happily play with children of another race or religion without any suspicion or prejudice whatsoever because they don't "know" any better. Left to their own devices, young children demonstrate altruism before they can even speak, and I think what we generally consider to be amoral may be largely a result of imposed definitions and corrupting outside influences on our innate morality.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So can't we ultimately lay all those bad things you just mentioned at the feet of individual thinkers? |
No, quite the opposite. The Holocaust simply would not have occurred without people willing to follow one madman and do what he claimed was morally right. One black sheep can't do much if the rest of the flock doesn't follow. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 03:54:27 PM · #979 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Do you then believe that you are moral? If so, are you moral not because you believe in your moral actions, but because you are afraid of what will happen should your actions be interpreted by God as immoral? |
Actually I don't think I'm that moral. I would not include myself in the "most" that Bear_Music originally referenced. I will say, that I try to be more moral, and thet the gains I have made towards being moral are due in part to a fear orf divine judgement. However, I personally have a long way to go. |
I wonder then what would make you more moral, what areas need improvement. (Incidentally, don't answer if too personal. I'm frankly surprised you answered the original question. I'm not sure I would, since it's open to mischaracterization by others less kind than me. :P ) |
I won't get too personal ;-)
My morality is pretty simple; there are only 2 commandments in the new testament. Christ said to place God 1st in all you do, every word, thought and deed. I do pretty good in the deed department, but thoughts and words are an entirely different matter.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:04:04 PM · #980 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My morality is pretty simple; there are only 2 commandments in the new testament. Christ said to place God 1st in all you do, every word, thought and deed. |
At the risk of appearing smug, I was hoping you'd say that. You don't really mention people at all in your definition of what improved moral behaviour could be, or even before, in what you think moral behaviour is in the first place. Not necessarily in your case, because I don't know you, but this is what generally troubles me about believers: an apparent willingness to forgo moral interaction with humans over unobservable interaction with (from a non-believer's standpoint) a fictional being.
I can say with some confidence that a non-believer's morality is guided by actions and deeds directed toward other people. Also kind of obvious, given that a god isn't required in a non-believer's life. Such a non-believer would think that other people are more important when benefitting from his moral position, rather than, from his standpoint, what would be a fictional entity. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:14:31 PM · #981 |
My only reply is that:
Earlier in life when I challenged my faith and all religion, especially the Bible, and actively argued against scriptures teachings (using many of the same arguments used in these threads), I was by most accounts pretty immoral. For me, proving the inconsistencies in scripture authorized more of my behaviour. It wasn't untill much later, when I choose a personal course of study, that I came to terms with my behaviour. This is one reason that I believe that Atheists who do not have a "divine judge" to account to, have a different set of morality than I do. I say this as it was true in my personal case. Do all Atheists behave this way? No. Do some? Yes. Did I? Yes. Therefore, as I do not believe I am the only person in history to experience this, I surmise that other "non-believers" likely choose to be non-believers as it eases the concience. It certainly eased mine. Or at least was meant to.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:15:03 PM · #982 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And if there is no source for morality outside ourselves, then wouldn't EVERY decision if followed back far enough have come from someone thinking for themselves? |
Whatever text you follow was written by SOMEbody, and your sense of morality is shaped by those around you. However, kids will happily play with children of another race or religion without any suspicion or prejudice whatsoever because they don't "know" any better. Left to their own devices, young children demonstrate altruism before they can even speak, and I think what we generally consider to be amoral may be largely a result of imposed definitions and corrupting outside influences on our innate morality.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So can't we ultimately lay all those bad things you just mentioned at the feet of individual thinkers? |
No, quite the opposite. The Holocaust simply would not have occurred without people willing to follow one madman and do what he claimed was morally right. One black sheep can't do much if the rest of the flock doesn't follow. |
I'm really sorta surprised by you here Shannon.
A) I can't recall the developmentalist who said that if two-year-olds had the physical bodies of adults our species would be extinct as we would have killed each other off by now. One of the very first cognitive stages is to realize there is "me" and there is "everything else". That doesn' smack of altruism.
As far as your second point, let's apply a homogeneous world test. If we wanted to do something shabby and all the world was filled with was "blind followers", could it get accomplished? The answer is no. There would be no action as every follower would look to another to follow. If the world were filled with "critical thinkers" who thought for themselves, could it get accomplished? The answer is "possibly" if enough of the thinkers thought it "best" to do so. So it seems to me that the critical thinking is the requisite part of the equation.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:18:28 PM · #983 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My only reply is that:
Earlier in life when I challenged my faith and all religion, especially the Bible, and actively argued against scriptures teachings (using many of the same arguments used in these threads), I was by most accounts pretty immoral. For me, proving the inconsistencies in scripture authorized more of my behaviour. It wasn't untill much later, when I choose a personal course of study, that I came to terms with my behaviour. This is one reason that I believe that Atheists who do not have a "divine judge" to account to, have a different set of morality than I do. I say this as it was true in my personal case. Do all Atheists behave this way? No. Do some? Yes. Did I? Yes. Therefore, as I do not believe I am the only person in history to experience this, I surmise that other "non-believers" likely choose to be non-believers as it eases the concience. It certainly eased mine. Or at least was meant to. |
Ok, thanks for that. Hopefully you recognize that not every person, not even necessarily most people, will have identical experiences to you. It wouldn't be fair to judge large groups of people based on your particular "weaknesses", such as they are. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:25:00 PM · #984 |
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture.
Since I do not believe that most people have the energy, drive, and research skills to reach this conclusion via logic, I then conclude that most non-believers choose to be so, as religious taechings conflict with their behaviour.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:29:02 PM · #985 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture. |
But the scripture of which group of believers? Christian? Hindu? Canadian aboriginal? There are atheists amongst all these groups.
I don't agree, by the way. Like I said before, your atheists seem to be knee-jerk reactionaries, hedonists at their core who seem to believe in a god, but reject it out of convenience. These aren't really atheists, are they? |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:39:10 PM · #986 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture. |
But the scripture of which group of believers? Christian? Hindu? Canadian aboriginal? There are atheists amongst all these groups.
I don't agree, by the way. Like I said before, your atheists seem to be knee-jerk reactionaries, hedonists at their core who seem to believe in a god, but reject it out of convenience. These aren't really atheists, are they? |
Certainly those from group A above would not be knee-jerk reationaries. Those from group B might be. However, even if they were theists, yet violated the tenents of their religion (Christian, Hindu, Canadian aboriginal), then they would be considered atheists, at least by their actions.
I sense that you and others posting here, believe that morality is confined to "deeds" or public actions. Following the basic laws of a society if you will. For me, morality truly does encompass thought, word and deed. The tenents of which I got through my religion. There are other religions besides christianity that teach similar combinations of behaviour contained in more than just deeds.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:43:46 PM · #987 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of the very first cognitive stages is to realize there is "me" and there is "everything else". That doesn' smack of altruism. |
Here ya go. Interesting stuff.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
let's apply a homogeneous world test... |
What kind of test is that? The real world is made up of both leaders and followers. Evil leaders can do little harm without henchman/minions, while good leaders can't accomplish great things without the will of the people. That doesn't mean EVERYBODY follows the leader- some people are just fearful or apathetic. I'm speaking of followers who support killing, enslaving or discrimminating against another group of people because their external guide insists that it's right.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 16:49:38. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:49:14 PM · #988 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What kind of test is that? The real world is made up of both leaders and followers. Evil leaders can do little harm without henchman/minions, while good leaders can't accomplish great things without the will of the people. That doesn't mean EVERYBODY follows the leader- some people are just fearful or apathetic. I'm speaking of followers who support killing, enslaving or discrimminating against another group of people because their external guide insists that it's right. |
So what's the point? People follow other people into doing bad things? Duh. I didn't need someone to point that out to me. I also point out the following obvious things:
1) People follow other people into doing extraordinary things.
2) People make their own decisions to do bad things
3) People make their own decisions to do great things
How you guys think we will just simply let you place all the bad stuff in this world upon "blind faith" is beyond me. Personally I think it's all due to "idiot critical thinkers". (that was sarcasm BTW)
BTW, I'm not too impressed with your altruism study. I've have personal experience with far too many two-year-olds to rather believe that they are basically "looking out for #1" at that point.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 16:50:42.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 04:53:49 PM · #989 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture.
Since I do not believe that most people have the energy, drive, and research skills to reach this conclusion via logic, I then conclude that most non-believers choose to be so, as religious taechings conflict with their behaviour. |
Here̢۪s another reason, my girlfriend was raised by agnostic/atheist parents. She never believed in gods in the first place and finds some of the literal beliefs of religious people to be foreign and incomprehensible. She's also a really sweet person and very successful in her profession. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:05:16 PM · #990 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
I can only think of 2 reasons why a person would be an Atheist. A) they arrived at the decision logically (the religious proofs arguments) or B) they choose to not believe as their behaviour contradicts the teachings of scripture.
Since I do not believe that most people have the energy, drive, and research skills to reach this conclusion via logic, I then conclude that most non-believers choose to be so, as religious taechings conflict with their behaviour. |
Here̢۪s another reason, my girlfriend was raised by agnostic/atheist parents. She never believed in gods in the first place and finds some of the literal beliefs of religious people to be foreign and incomprehensible. She's also a really sweet person and very successful in her profession. |
My spouse, who is virtually incapable of lying and has never lied once to me in fourteen years, is in exactly the same position, never having known religious belief and simply taking the non-existence of God for granted. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:10:58 PM · #991 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Here̢۪s another reason, my girlfriend was raised by agnostic/atheist parents. She never believed in gods in the first place and finds some of the literal beliefs of religious people to be foreign and incomprehensible. She's also a really sweet person and very successful in her profession. |
or perhaps option d/ raised within a religious framework but rejected belief in various supernatural entities at the same time, along with tooth fairies, Santa Claus and other mythical beings ?
Though I guess that's essentially option a/ in the original statement.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 17:13:44.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:17:15 PM · #992 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So what's the point? People follow other people into doing bad things? |
Show me any large scale act of evil that was carried out by individual thinkers against previously normal behavior rather than people following the instructions of a charismatic leader or religious doctrine.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, I'm not too impressed with your altruism study. I've have personal experience with far too many two-year-olds to rather believe that they are basically "looking out for #1" at that point. |
Every animal is generally looking out for #1- trying to improve his lot in life (or the afterlife). Morality is a willingness to help and respect others along the way, even if there is no personal gain in doing so. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:27:17 PM · #993 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
or perhaps option d/ raised within a religious framework but rejected belief in various supernatural entities at the same time, along with tooth fairies, Santa Claus and other mythical beings ? |
WHAT?!? Santa Claus is real. It says so in several books I have that were written by people who were known to exist, and you can't prove otherwise! The only way you could have possibly reached that conclusion is by logic or by choosing not to believe because the necessity of being good all year conflicts with your heathen ways... and I don't think you had the energy, drive, and research skills as a kid to reach this conclusion via logic.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 17:27:29. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:27:40 PM · #994 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is it a Christian principle to defend genocide and slavery as moral? I̢۪ve seen Christians do that in defense of the commandments of the God of the Old Testament. I consider that a waste of time. Did you find that illuminating as well? |
Forget the specifics; based on what you are saying, one could deduce that you believe to choose a moral code and follow it all your days is a waste of a life...
R |
If you're a homosexual and you repressed that because you were raised it is immoral I'd say you are wasting your life. Specifics in this matter are important.
ETA: Nevermind. This thread only picks up when I'm not around. :/
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 17:29:41.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:32:47 PM · #995 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
or perhaps option d/ raised within a religious framework but rejected belief in various supernatural entities at the same time, along with tooth fairies, Santa Claus and other mythical beings ? |
WHAT?!? Santa Claus is real. It says so in several books I have that were written by people who were known to exist, and you can't prove otherwise! The only way you could have possibly reached that conclusion is by logic or by choosing not to believe because the necessity of being good all year conflicts with your heathen ways... and I don't think you had the energy, drive, and research skills as a kid to reach this conclusion via logic. |
Well I think we know he's fake because he promises to return each December but doesn't actually show up. Hmm, come to think of it wasn't there someone else that was suppose to return already???
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:37:14 PM · #996 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of the very first cognitive stages is to realize there is "me" and there is "everything else". That doesn' smack of altruism. |
Here ya go. Interesting stuff.
|
By the time a human child reaches toddlerhood, parents, siblings, et. al., have inculcated him/her with their own sense of morality by demonstration. Same for chimps. Same for elephants - in their NORMAL habitat.
To see what happens when elephants are relocated BEFORE being taught, read This Article from CBS News.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:53:58 PM · #997 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How you guys think we will just simply let you place all the bad stuff in this world upon "blind faith" is beyond me. Personally I think it's all due to "idiot critical thinkers". (that was sarcasm BTW) |
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Brush. Painting. Broad. Stroke!
I don̢۪t believe that and I certainly have never said such a thing.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 05:55:08 PM · #998 |
Originally posted by RonB:
By the time a human child reaches toddlerhood, parents, siblings, et. al., have inculcated him/her with their own sense of morality by demonstration. Same for chimps. Same for elephants - in their NORMAL habitat.
To see what happens when elephants are relocated BEFORE being taught, read This Article from CBS News. |
I already said, "your sense of morality is shaped by those around you," but the base is innate. If you're attributing such helpful behavior to having already learned it, then older toddlers should behave even better (LOL).
That delinquent elephant story has long been one of my favorites. The well-behaved elephants must be Christian, since Athiest elephants would obviously have no moral compass to guide their actions, eh? ;-) |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 06:41:59 PM · #999 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How you guys think we will just simply let you place all the bad stuff in this world upon "blind faith" is beyond me. Personally I think it's all due to "idiot critical thinkers". (that was sarcasm BTW) |
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Brush. Painting. Broad. Stroke!
I don̢۪t believe that and I certainly have never said such a thing. |
Maybe I'm confusing what you are saying with what your cohort is saying.
Originally posted by Shannon:
Show me any large scale act of evil that was carried out by individual thinkers against previously normal behavior rather than people following the instructions of a charismatic leader or religious doctrine.
|
Originally posted by Paul:
Out of several billion peole some will have bad thoughts. But it seems it's only when large numbers of others abandon their own individual thoughts and mindlessly follow the doctrines of another that widespread societal catastrophe results. |
Louis put the blame for the Nazi rise to power at the follower's feet.
Originally posted by Shannon again:
The Holocaust simply would not have occurred without people willing to follow one madman and do what he claimed was morally right. |
How am I supposed to interpret these quotes? I do note that I see nothing like that in your quotes...yet. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 06:55:55 PM · #1000 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis put the blame for the Nazi rise to power at the follower's feet. |
I did NOT. I was addressing the issue of the ongoing support of the regime, already established, by indocrinated citizens. I didn't say anything about the rise to power.
edit: commas to clarify
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 18:59:35. |
|
