What do you think? Is there such a thing as objective morality? Or is it all what you’ve been taught?

No. Some things are pretty universal. Murder is universally considered a bad thing. Even in groups who commit murder, there is a concept of “us” and “them,” and murdering “us” is always bad. Stealing from “us” is also bad. Lying... same thing. When it affects someone personally, everyone is pretty much the same in beliefs about right and wrong. The only way people get confused is when they go off to college and their brains turn to mush... but even with an advanced degree the “us” part of morality stays the same.

I would say it depends on the perspective. From a whole universe perspective, supernovas don't care much about fraud for example. I've yet to hear a black hole complain about shoplifting. From a human perspective, laws and morality differ from place to place but all human communities have rules and codes of conduct to ensure survival. Without some controls on behaviour, pure anarchy would have long ended our species run. In that way, there is something innate to morality, but, in my opinion, that innate quality is the want and need to form groups. Group dynamics is what is innate and, for those to work, morality is needed.

I'm more kick on this one .

Nothing is good or bad only thinking makes it so.

@Kick & Mersa: the universe thing is a silly argument. The very concept of morality implies conscious choice. Without choice, morality is meaningless. A black hole can neither commit  nor understand fraud unless it is sentient. When it comes to humans, you don’t have to teach a child how to recognize injustice when the injustice happens to them personally. Even psychopaths have a self-centered version of morality. True morality is simply acting out the same rules for both “us” and “them”.

For those who might have become confused by college and need a more erudite explanation... I just summarized the universal formulation of Kantian ethics.

What is consciousness ????
That's a whole other question on its own , do animals have morals , fungi? Rocks??

LOL. The only immoral thing you might be able to accuse a rock of is maybe having a bad attitude :)

All rocks are bad because secretly they wanna be slingstones

Anything that takes action purely based on stimulus and response is amoral.  Morality requires not only the ability to make choices (i.e. not fungus) but also requires that those choices have moral consequences. Choosing between lentil soup and a salad during lunch is an example of a choice with minimal moral consequences. There may be some context under which it has moral implications but most of the time that choice would also be amoral even though it is a conscious choice.

So when does a choice become a moral one?  The answer is simple: when that choice knowingly impacts another sentient being. Here’s an example:
Suppose you cut down a tree. Is that a moral choice? It depends. If cutting down that tree helps your family stay warm in the winter, then yes. If the tree belongs to your neighbor, then yes. If it was immoral to cut down the tree, the immoral act was not committed against the tree. It was actually committed against your neighbor.

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Oct 1^st, 2019 at 10:16pm:

No. Some things are pretty universal. Murder is universally considered a bad thing. Even in groups who commit murder, there is a concept of “us” and “them,” and murdering “us” is always bad. Stealing from “us” is also bad. Lying... same thing. When it affects someone personally, everyone is pretty much the same in beliefs about right and wrong. The only way people get confused is when they go off to college and their brains turn to mush... but even with an advanced degree the “us” part of morality stays the same.

ancient Greeks and Vikings and I believe others wanted to die in battle as heroes today the same thing we may view it as stupidity or suicide .
we just don't value courage over life.
killing "us" is bad today , human sacrifices to the gods or other were common in many civilizations.
People don't like other people whose actions cannot control or predict and they will use morality to control them, that's what religion and state does to people. (I agree with Nietzsche in this)

An example: In ancient Sparta the act of stealing was not considered good or bad, being caught was bad. They wanted boys to be good thieves but if they caught them they where punished .
I guess the same goes with murder, even today if someone is murdered the act might not even be punished if he was considered "bad" by a group within the bigger group of a state.

Morality works for those with power, just another tool.

EDIT: for the bully the bullying is moral he can do unethical things not necessarily because he is bad by nature, outsiders view it as bad, but he can't see it . Jordan Peterson said it right , anyone could be a nazi in germany 1940 and probably most would be, we are not better. Morality is a social construct.

My point is that moral relativism is intellectually inconsistent. Murder is ok... just don’t do it to me. That’s not morality. Consensus is likewise not a good measure of morality. That’s how slavery and genocide are justified. If you want to know what universal morality looks like, look at the things you don’t want others to do to you. Hence the golden rule.

To expand on what I wrote, what I mean is that there is no, in my opinion, external forces deciding morality. Things are good and bad because they are good and bad for humans and those judgments are based on subjective human opinions. Outside of human perspective, there is nothing inherently evil about murder. Everything is just the interaction of particles and, as far as I can see, from that perspective, the certain interaction of some particles is no different from another interaction on a universal scale.

Also from my perspective, there are no consequences outside of human society for evil behaviour; I don't believe in Heaven or Hell or karma. I don't believe that written into the atoms of the universe there is a code of ethics, all are constructed by humans (and arguably some other non-human persons...). Because I don't believe in some universal rulebook, I argue that we should constantly be reevaluating what is good and bad because what is judged good and bad can change due to circumstance. We have to evaluate what is the best course of action in response to all of the available information. The Golden Rule and the Harm Principle of John Stuart Mill are, in my opinion, some of the best thinking we have on morality, but again, whether you break these rules, will have no effect except in human society. Morality is entirely man-made but there are lots of things that are man-made that are great like cheesecake so it's no loss that it isn't a fixed universal constant.

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2019 at 11:10am:

My point is that moral relativism is intellectually inconsistent. Murder is ok... just don’t do it to me. That’s not morality. Consensus is likewise not a good measure of morality. That’s how slavery and genocide are justified. If you want to know what universal morality looks like, look at the things you don’t want others to do to you. Hence the golden rule.

I think that we generally agree.
when things get specific and real they become grey rather than black and white.
I insist that morality is another tool, the wise man will use it wisely most of the times, the stupid man will abuse it .

people who don't want to know another man's pain will use the "look at the things you don’t want others to do to you." to make bad actions seem moral.
overgeneralization can create an "us" vs "them" ideology easily  and then if "they" act in a way you don't like to be treated how do you respond? turn the other cheek? probably not , and then there is escalation and vendetta,  morality cannot really stop it because it is subjective not objective.

As for minor stuff like taste you can't expect to be treated as you want by someone with different tastes. I might welcome you with dirty clothes, that means that I like things casual and I treat you as a friend but that might offend you because you treat your friends in a formal manner.
treating people as you like to be treated is a good starting point but is overgeneralised.

I think you are oversimplifying the golden rule. The dirty vs clean argument does not undermine the golden rule; it simply forces it to a new level. If dirty means disrespectful to someone, then you can try to present yourself in a respectful way by taking a shower if you already understand that the two are connected in their mind. Likewise if the dirty person is unaware of the connection between respect and cleanliness due to cultural differences, then there is room for “Mr. Clean” to voluntarily disassociate cleanliness with respect out of respect for the dirty person’s cultural perspective. Now the golden rule only pushes both parties towards mutual respect and patience and understanding instead of forcing one person to take a shower :)

@ NooneOfConsequence

the understanding between the two parties you suggest is reached through logic not morals.
we can see the situation objectively only because we are not taking part in it when things are real we get emotional and think ourselves has the moral high ground. 

You say potato. I say tomato...
If you want to split hairs on which elements are purely logic and which have moral relevance, then have fun. Both are necessary, and I’m not interested in turning this into a philosophical taxonomy discussion.

   Morality is in the eye of the beholder.  It is different for everyone and changes with the times.  Just a handful of generations ago it was moral to burn people at the stake.  Go back a few thousand years ago and it was perfectly fine to feed people alive to wild animals while thousands cheered.  What is moral to me might not be to you and vice versa. 

Rat Man wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 12:44pm:

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.  It is different for everyone and changes with the times.  Just a handful of generations ago it was moral to burn people at the stake.  Go back a few thousand years ago and it was perfectly fine to feed people alive to wild animals while thousands cheered.  What is moral to me might not be to you and vice versa.

True. Societal norms have changed. But has the act itself changed from being good to bad? I think we all agree subjective societal morals change. But the act itself? Did it ever change? Or has society changed as they have become more enlightened to others suffering?

I think this question gets mired in the fact that it's easy to reverse what is actually changing. I contend that the act of hurting an innocent has never changed from being good to bad, only societies ability to see it as such.

To give a simple example if I am born without the ability to hear and then receive cochlear implants did the TV suddenly begin making noise when I had the ability to percieve it? No. Only my own perception of it changed. It always was that way.

It's all just particles interacting with particles, if we see some of those interactions as 'bad' and others as 'good' then it's on us.

Morphy wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 5:36pm:

I contend that the act of hurting an innocent has never changed from being good to bad

you mean bad to good?

morality is judged by subjective beings using subjective means so it is subjective.
The clarification of the question changes things to : is there an objective standpoint/judge/means with which we can say what is truly moral or not? the question then transforms to: is there something above humans that judges things? which is like asking : is there god?

are humans able to find an objective standpoint/judge/means?

what is above humans and is not a god , is the universe, it's particles and energy and it seems it has no morals and doesn't judge.

That's the point isn't it? The path from moral law to moral law giver is an old argument that contains much force. If you have rejected the idea of a moral law giver then the moral law also falls away.

As for the witch example. We don't burn witches because we don't think they exist. We no longer believe that people have sold their souls to the eternal enemy of mankind in exchange for supernatural powers that pose present threat to the community. We also no longer cut out hearts on temples. But likewise we don't do this because we do not believe that it will keep the sun from rising. If we believed that blood is necessary to for dawn to break, the only question we would be asking is "whose?"

I see morality as coming from two things.  And in full disclosure, these aren’t ideas I came up with, but ideas that I’ve heard and agree with.

The first thing is that as humans evolved as a social species, certain traits developed.  Things like a sense of fairness, empathy, compassion, etc.  These traits have also evolved in other social species and have been tested in chimps, monkeys, dogs, and likely other animals.  This is a really entertaining video if you haven’t seen it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg.

Now those traits are needed, but by themselves we don’t have morality unless we’re all striving for the same goal.  My favorite description of that goal is “well-being”.  And as part of well-being we can have a number of things included, such as life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain, etc.

So for example, as an individual it’s obvious to me that I don’t like pain.  And because I’m part of a social group and have compassion for the others around me (at least most of the time :)), I don’t want to cause them pain either.  If I step outside of either of the criteria, such as not showing fairness, or impeding someone's ability to be happy and healthy, I would generally be considered to be acting immorally.

@ joe_meadmaker

so the 1st thing is that we evolved as a social species but what is the second?

I like the suggestion that we look for "well-being".
In reality we pursue well-being until we achieve it , then we need adventure .

joe_meadmaker wrote on Oct 4^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

I see morality as coming from two things.  And in full disclosure, these aren’t ideas I came up with, but ideas that I’ve heard and agree with. The first thing is that as humans evolved as a social species, certain traits developed.  Things like a sense of fairness, empathy, compassion, etc.  These traits have also evolved in other social species and have been tested in chimps, monkeys, dogs, and likely other animals.  This is a really entertaining video if you haven’t seen it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg. Now those traits are needed, but by themselves we don’t have morality unless we’re all striving for the same goal.  My favorite description of that goal is “well-being”.  And as part of well-being we can have a number of things included, such as life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain, etc. So for example, as an individual it’s obvious to me that I don’t like pain.  And because I’m part of a social group and have compassion for the others around me (at least most of the time :)), I don’t want to cause them pain either.  If I step outside of either of the criteria, such as not showing fairness, or impeding someone's ability to be happy and healthy, I would generally be considered to be acting immorally.

Looking at it from the point of view of secularism one could see how morality might have evolved as a genetic trait that has benefits. Humans are by their nature social creatures. Large societies cannot exist indefinitely without a shared sense of morality.

A larger more cohesive society has more of a chance of overtaking smaller or more disorganized society meaning their genetic traits will be passed on to a greater extent.

This is just the secular side of the argument. I am Christian so that colors my world view as well. 

But to me it seems anything that offers a benefit is more likely than not something which will be passed down genetically, meaning, generally speaking, even if a particular action being good or bad may be something that changes, the idea that there are actually things which are morally acceptable and not might be genetically encoded.

Sarosh wrote on Oct 4^th, 2019 at 4:07pm:

@ joe_meadmaker so the 1st thing is that we evolved as a social species but what is the second?

Sorry, I could have made that more clear.  The second thing is the goal of well-being.  So if within our group we care about each other, and agree that it's best if we're all alive, happy, and healthy; actions that support that are moral, and actions against it are immoral.


@Morphy - I get your point, and respect it.  I do not believe in a god, so I don't believe that morality started when it was commanded that certain things shouldn't be done.  But I do believe that the end result is what's important.  However we get there, if people treat each other well and with respect, we all benefit.

Actually there was no need to mention my personal beliefs come to think of it but in interest of full disclosure there it is.

I guess I am always fascinated by others beliefs so maybe that's why it came out. I love to see how people view the world. It makes life interesting. A friend of mine is a pretty hardcore atheist with quite an interesting background. We always have good conversations about these subjects.

One thing I like about Slinging.org is everyone seems able to have these conversations without it becoming so toxic they have to be shut down. At least I don't remember any threads like that. The shooting one is another good example. It takes a certain amount of faith in the people here to start a thread like that and I think so far it's panned out well.

If we grant the premise that we've evolved, in general, a moral sensibility it is only because it is beneficial evolutionarily. You run into the issue that you've changed the focus of morality. Morality has traditionally been seen as "what is right to do, regardless of who benefits", while Evolution cares only and ever about whether it produces more offspring. As soon as you get that, and add that to the point that logic/intellect also evolved only to produce more offspring, you lose the weight of morality. It is no longer "right" it is "beneficial at the moment" all that matters is having babies. You can fit a squirrely argument about balance of strategies in the population in here, but that's really just Nietzche's Ubermench by another name.

Rather than give you an out from the historical arguments over the nature of morality, you're right back in utilitarian arguments and the free rider problem, and perhaps the most important issue is that we have the incontrovertible fact that many people want to do things we feel are morally wrong, which shows us that a simple "do what you feel is good" is inadequate.

@Morphy, you mentioned that your beliefs are based in Christianity... it’s probably worth mentioning the Christian view.  In Genesis, the knowledge of good and evil was not inherent in humans until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Implicitly this means that the definition of good and evil is not determined by man but by God. When man tries to decide what is good on his own, he is effectively trying to play God.

I believe morality is objective and absolute, it is the laws created by God. Most of us have these laws in ours from the day we are born even if we are not religious.

Romans 2:15since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.

The side that teaches it is all relative and subjective is inspired by the fallen one. Communism/socialism and other philosophies that teaches such world view is inspired by satanism. The French revolution, the communist revolution, etc, the people behind these ideologies were satanists and relativists, sorcerers. It's been going on for centuries now, and they are doing the work of Satan, all with one goal; preparing the world for the coming of the beast and the antichrist; incarnated in artificial intelligence and transhumanism which will enslave humanity. The great technological progress and acceleration of the last centuries serve this purpose

AncientCraftwork wrote on Oct 5^th, 2019 at 7:59am:

I believe morality is objective and absolute, it is the laws created by God. Most of us have these laws in ours from the day we are born even if we are not religious. Romans 2:15since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. The side that teaches it is all relative and subjective is inspired by the fallen one. Communism/socialism and other philosophies that teaches such world view is inspired by satanism. The French revolution, the communist revolution, etc, the people behind these ideologies were satanists and relativists, sorcerers. It's been going on for centuries now, and they are doing the work of Satan, all with one goal; preparing the world for the coming of the beast and the antichrist; incarnated in artificial intelligence and transhumanism which will enslave humanity. The great technological progress and acceleration of the last centuries serve this purpose

so science and logic are satanistic?  :-?
capitalism  does a great job so don't worry about communism.
religion is not bad it's a good guide on how to live or for those who feel lost , but if you burn and condemn books and people because of your beliefs something's wrong.

For me, I can't get past the Problem of Evil. I've yet to hear an argument that makes any short of sense. I don't see an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent diety anywhere.

I probably should not have brought religion up lol. That was my mistake.

I like to discuss things like the problem of evil. I actually don't think that one is a difficult one to explain. Harder still would be simply saying ,"I don't see therefore I don't believe."

But ultimately I wasn't intending this to be a discussion on religion. But hey if it veers into that territory so be it. But that wasn't my intention, so like I said I shouldn't have brought it up. My bad guys.

I think conversations about religion are inevitable :D It was going to happen eventually.

     There are times when it's prudent to bow out of a conversation. My views on religion and it's relation to morality would be offensive to at least half of those here.  I'll  leave it there.

Kick wrote on Oct 5^th, 2019 at 1:36pm:

I think conversations about religion are inevitable :D It was going to happen eventually.

I agree. You can’t talk about the origins of morality without religion coming into the conversation.

Rat Man wrote on Oct 5^th, 2019 at 11:53pm:

There are times when it's prudent to bow out of a conversation. My views on religion and it's relation to morality would be offensive to at least half of those here.  I'll  leave it there.

I think my views of the world would offend almost anyone in here but if they believe they know the truth or they know better they shouldn't be offended.
Discussion is a good test of our views and we can see whats wrong with the way we express them.If someone thinks he knows the truth then he won't feel he is tested but at least he can learn the impact of the way he expresses it.

that being said I too want to stop discussing the matter because maybe this is a bad place for this kind of discussions, written words on the internet have much different impact than face to face discussion.

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not easily offended but if you guys feel it's best to stop I respect that.

We did manage three pages plus or minus a post with out veering into religion, so I don't think it's necessarily inevitable. But good talk guys!  ;)

LOL this has got to be one of the most polite and respectful conversations about religion and morality on the internet!

While we’re on the topic of being offended, I never understood why it’s such a big deal. The way I see it, there are two possibilities:
A) You say something that is ignorant or bigoted and someone is rightfully offended but they become aware of your biases and have an opportunity to either address them or avoid you. In this case the problem is ignorance of belief... not that what was said was offensive.

B) The person who feels offended is the one harboring bias or simply wants to shut down the conversation because they are uncomfortable with it. In that case I say you have no right be offended. If everyone shuts each other down then there are no opportunities to come to an understanding. It’s much more honest to just say you don’t want to talk about it rather than acting offended and blaming the other person for your discomfort.

The Bible provides a pretty good explanation for how and why the world is as it is. But you have to read it and believe it like a child, from the first page on wards in a mostly chronological order. I grew up as a Christian and all the stories but never really understood what I was being taught until I started reading myself so from the first words, and studied the events described in the ancient texts in chronological order. It really opened my eyes.

During my teenage years I fell off the Christian path deeply and it lead to misery, pain and above all confusion. I fell into a real deep psychological hole but I am glad it happened, I am now restored in my faith and couldnt have imagined a positive future if I hadn't.

Once you have studied the Bible and got a good worldview from it, the second task is to reject all other non Christian teachings and don't let them pollute and create doubt in your head again. No more atheistic television, film, no more worldly music, no drugs. I feel no identification with those things anymore. If I see those things again, I just get an ache in my body.
I understand the Amish now, they know.

“And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’” Matthew 5:1-3.

From past experience I've come to realize that a forum such as this is not the best place to delve deeply into inflammatory topics.

And nothing is more inflammatory than religion and politics. It's almost inevitable that someone is going to take something wrong and become very angry lol. Doesn't matter if it's not meant in a bad way, we all come from different backgrounds and filter things through bias.

The ability to see how someone is saying something in real time helps to soften the impact of statements that might otherwise seem impossibly "bigoted". And don't get me started on that word. Everyone is a bigot by the very definition of the word but it's a great social club to bludgeon people with to try to get the upper hand. Ugh.

Jauke, I'll use your last post as an example. I totally get what you're saying. Ive experienced both sides. Went deep into all sorts of side paths in my life, did the drugs and all that life style only to come back to realizing that just because something may seem old and outdated doesn't mean it is so. Had some humbling spiritual experiences that have proven to me there's some weird, weird stuff in this world, more than just the little box we are told makes up reality. So there's no going back to were I was, at least not for me.

I'm not a religious guy per se. I don't go to Church. But I do read the Bible and pray. I am a devoted Christian. I try to love everyone and let God sort out the rest. So I get what you are saying. But some people have only seen "Christian" through the lense or the Joel Osteen or the Westboro Baptist Church or the neighbor that Facebook's how much they love God and then cheats on their spouse on the side.

So what your saying is usually going to get filtered into the most harsh possible interpretation, when in reality you may have nothing against anyone. So I guess what I'm saying is, while I'm not against discussing this at all, based on past experiences I doubt anything good will come from it.

If a person wants to share their thoughts on morality or religion, please feel free. I'm always interested in other points of view. I'm sure the same applies to many here.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Hebrew nation in the Bible was not that they did evil, but specifically that they did evil “in the sight of the Lord”. This is sometimes also expressed as “everyone did what was right in their own eyes”.  In other words, there is a divine morality that trumps social constructs and when the divine morality is ignored by society, great evil results from people attempting to do what “feels right “. 

That’s the Biblical view. You can choose to believe it or not, but it’s pretty clear that in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, morality is not subservient to social norms. 

I was brought up in a christian society , I tried to be a good christian sometimes more, sometimes less. I see it as a very weakening religion.but I see Christ as a great man , when reading the new testament I was confused how everyone ignores how anarchist he was.


Morphy wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 3:23pm:

If a person wants to share their thoughts on morality or religion, please feel free. I'm always interested in other points of view

I agree in a lot of things with Nietzsche.  I don't remember which happened first, thinking in a similar way or agreeing with his ideas.
you can read this : https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/a-primer-on-nietzsches-big-ideas/
I think it's a good start if you haven't read smthing similar

In my...wanderings. I have read much. I was raised fundamentalist. I broke that belief in myself. And I wandered. And read. Over time I have found my way to a more slender faith because for all my reading, the best answers to the fundamental questions of life and morality are, in order: Christianity, Stoicism, Bhuddism.

"Strong Nihilism" "Evolutionary Morality" always sneak definitions in and I think ultimately fail as worldviews. Few who claim them accept their implications and most simply age out of them and cease thinking about them.

In my early twenties I decided to to some missionary work and spent a few years in Ohio of all places spreading the good news.

One thing I learned was Christians are, unfortunately, some of the most judgemental people ever. Especially about other Christians. I remember talking to one guy who was, by all outward indications, a devout man talk about a man down the street and explain why he was certainly going to hell because while he was a Christian he didn't interpret the Bible "correctly'. Correctly, of course, was how the first man interpreted it.

I learned how to listen to others with strong opinions without feeling the need to bash them with my own. Something I do well in real life but not as well as I should here lol.

That being said one thing I learned that has served me well is those Christians who believe they have it all figured out and are quick to judge others harshly are usually the people who are the least spiritually evolved towards God. While almost without fail those people who have had profound spiritual experiences about the Divine are usually left understanding they know less than they thought.

It's classic Dunning-Krueger effect. I guess this principle applies to all sorts of fields of knowledge.so it shouldn't surprise me. But that's been my experience and so far it's been pretty right on.

It’s funny how some people set themselves up as the ultimate authority for Biblical interpretation. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you make yourself the topmost authority on its interpretation, then you are effectively claiming higher authority than God! 

My standard for interpretation is that, if God is perfect, and if the Bible is divine, then any interpretations must be internally consistent with the rest of the Bible. If my interpretation is inconsistent with any part of the scriptures, then my understanding is the thing that’s wrong. To do otherwise is to either claim that God is logically inconsistent or that I know better than God.

As a student of biology/sociology, there is no "objective morality". Different species and different intra-niches display different moral values in different situations. The problem lies in humans' ability to think about it. An objective morality as simple as "do not kill" becomes encumbered. There is no objective morality demonstrated in human culture, though there is congruence with other socially focused species that reciprocate favor. It's sad to think that the ability to aim urine may well lead to the extinction of half the species on this planet. Throwing things at it isn't working. We need slings. If the Earth was seen as a host, we are a virus. All virus's should have slings. One of my cats drives a Porsche.

morality is intrinsically self determined.

I personally - think it's immoral to claim your god is the one and only god.
There are thousands of gods worshipped around the world. Logic would dictate that if one god exists, then so do others. So why should any individual god be any more correct or valid than any other ?

Plus all historical texts are written by people. Often after long periods of sleep and nutrient deprivation - hallucinations ?
Probably.

As far as religion and morality goes - yeah, not so much. The majority of religions encourage disparagement and prosecution of other religions.

The whole concept of a 'missionary' is that people with beliefs different to yours are clearly wrong.

I'm not an atheist (and it's a fairly safe bet my god, isn't yours), but I am against organised religion.
I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they like, while believing that nobody has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else.

My morals are unique to me, and while I might (okay, will) argue any point with anyone, anywhere. that's simply because I love arguing. I will also uphold your right to believe whatever you like.

One of the worst religious fanatics on the planet is Richard dawkins. A man so convinced he is right, that he has made a career of telling other people what they should and should not believe. The very definition of a religious fanatic.

"The whole concept of a 'missionary' is that people with beliefs different to yours are clearly wrong."


Lol. To be fair CA the same could be said about anyone's beliefs. We all believe what we believe because we think it's right. If someone else disagrees with us we think they are wrong. We have all disagreed with each other on this forum at one time or another, nothing immoral about that.

To believe one has something worth sharing is not necessarily malicious, even though at times ideas are forced on others through threats of violence which violates the non-aggression principle and that would be wrong.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Oct 11^th, 2019 at 7:57am:

One of the worst religious fanatics on the planet is Richard dawkins. A man so convinced he is right, that he has made a career of telling other people what they should and should not believe. The very definition of a religious fanatic.

I was a completely insufferable atheist for much of my teens. I loved Dawkins and was fully on board... then I realised that actually, religion and religious beliefs and spirituality are almost universal aspects to every society that has ever existed on Earth. To deny that entirely and actively go against it is to deny part of the human experience and just leads to higher blood pressure and pointless rage that helps no-one.

There's a book titled
The Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead: Dos and Don'ts of Right Behavior, Tough Thinking, Clear Writing, and Living a Good Life

which makes a similar point there Kick. For me, part of the trip back to faith was the realization that for all the minds I'd touched, read, listened to, or interacted with. The ones that I looked at and said "you are a better man than I am. I ought to be more like you" none of them lacked faith. Sure I had found tough minded men that I still respect who lacked faith, but none of them inspired the "you're a better man than I".

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Oct 10^th, 2019 at 2:38pm:

It’s funny how some people set themselves up as the ultimate authority for Biblical interpretation. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you make yourself the topmost authority on its interpretation, then you are effectively claiming higher authority than God!  My standard for interpretation is that, if God is perfect, and if the Bible is divine, then any interpretations must be internally consistent with the rest of the Bible. If my interpretation is inconsistent with any part of the scriptures, then my understanding is the thing that’s wrong. To do otherwise is to either claim that God is logically inconsistent or that I know better than God.

I think that's a good way to put it. I think when it comes to matters of belief the best we can do is try to find internal consistency with what we believe, even if others might disagree.

My experience has been that in fact, no one, believes exactly as anyone else. I would be concerned for someone if they did. There's always going to be some small point someone May differ on. Christians need to let go of the need to enforce their beliefs on other Christians or non-christians. Of course in saying this I am not talking about sharing beliefs as I mentioned previously. Im not a fan of fire and brimstone sermons designed to shame or terrify into "being good".

I don't think hearts truly change through fear. You might get a short term change but eventually I think true progression comes from a desire to know peace and let go of one's own pain and fears. Anyways, yep I agree with ya NOOC. Well said.

My experience is that most of the people who are strongly opposed to the concepts of morality in the Bible haven’t studied the concepts for themselves. 

I would encourage anyone who thinks Christianity is wrong to go prove it to themselves. Go read the Bible with a skeptic’s eye and look for contradictions.  It’s easy to find contradictions if you want to only  look at the behavior of Christians instead of the Bible itself. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, but the fact that all people (Christian or otherwise) are naturally evil is one of the foundational premises of Christianity. We’re all hypocrites. Nobody lives up to God’s moral standards. That’s exactly why we need a savior to begin with.

That’s Christianity 101: If you aren’t already hopelessly flawed, then you don’t really need Jesus. Without the concept of God’s redemption plan for a hopelessly evil humanity, the Bible is just an irrelevant old book that tells silly stories... like the story about the time when humanity’s concepts of right and wrong came from eating a piece of fruit! 

The Bible actually admits that the Bible appears foolish to those who do not believe it, but when someone does choose to believe it... it’s life-changing.

I discussed a train of thought disproving the logic of god w/ a friend and he showed me this (picture below). I found it interesting so I'm sharing.

---

Good food for thought Sarosh. Now re-read that with the premise that everyone is evil ;D
It is conceivable that God allows evil for a time to also enable free will but that in the end there will be complete justice. If I am evil then I am glad God doesn’t immediately destroy all evil, but I also look forward to an afterlife without evil that I get to be a part of. 

Here’s another way to think about it:
The Bible also  says God shows both mercy and grace. If there was perfect and immediate justice then mercy and grace would be impossible.

The devil in these discussions always comes down to definitions. What do you mean by "good" or "evil" or "loving" or "all powerful"? Then you get the second tier questions, how are pain and suffering and evil related? Is free will good? Is the end product worth the process? How can we add up the good and evil? Does omnipotence allow contradiction of terms?


I can't remember or find the source of the quote but there's a quote that

"That this is complicated should not be surprising. We are discussing, after all, the existence or non-existence of God, if the matter were easily settled we would not be discussing it"
Or put less eloquently: If Epicurus's argument was utterly bulletproof and exhaustive we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

This is essentially The Problem of Evil. It's based on the straw man fallacy that evil serves no purpose and therefore is proof a benevolent God cannot exist.

So long as you accept that initial reasoning it seems like an easy way to disprove God. The reasoning is false though. Evil does serve a purpose in providing for the ability to excercise free will which in itself is essential for progression and a truly free creation. Otherwise the creation you are creating is nothing more than an annex of yourself and essentially a robot.

The Bible does discuss this question allegorically by referring to God as the caretaker of a vineyard who is constantly working to help those branches that want to produce good fruits (works and desires) to do so more fully. It's speaking of the process of learning to excercise freewill in a productive manner and this Earth life and all its dualities of good and evil as a learning process.

The other aspect that Jesus made pretty clear was that mistakes are not necessarily evil. They are opportunities to learn and grow. Peter denied Jesus, which seems pretty serious, but through that mistake and the bitter guilt he felt from it he became a powerhouse after. The parable of the prodigal son is another example. In the end if it takes mistakes to learn a lesson that is considered an acceptable short term pain so long as you turn away from it and seek better. God's desire is for you to learn the lesson, the mistake or sin can be erased once that lesson has been learned.

Mistakes are only evil if you refuse to learn from them because you continually inflict the consequences of those poor choices on yourself without any benefit. This is the meaning of damnation- your progression has stopped.

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 1:21pm:

Now re-read that with the premise that everyone is evil

first of all not anyone alive is evil example is a child or newborn. Secondly, if we were all evil then it goes under the "if god is all knowing,he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us".

If the religion says you are evil by definition , humans are evil (newborns/children/adults etc), then you make every course of action incapable of changing your state , you are human therefore you are always bad no matter what you do.


perpetualstudent wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:

The devil in these discussions always comes down to definitions.

That is the problem , devil is introduced by god and religion. I say there is no good or bad, we make it. I argue against your god so I use your definitions of god or evil and through logic I reach to conclusions then I test the conclusions if they comply to the initial dogma if not then the initial propositions or the dogma is wrong. It's called reductio ad absurdum.

you might argue that god is above the logic of us humans, if he is, then you following or not his morals and laws won't do you any good, he won't differ from a teapot in orbit thus god has to follow logic and causation.


perpetualstudent wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:

If Epicurus's argument was utterly bulletproof and exhaustive we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Flatearthers could use the same argument. I used logic in many discussions without people disagreeing until the end, after that comes the emotional response they try to deny logic and they get angry. I 've done it too , many times, controlling emotions is not easy.

@ Morphy

I don't need to believe in god heaven or hell to see a mistake as an opportunity to learn. If mistakes aren't evil then there is no reason to prevent them, there is no need for hell or judgement. If then you say mistakes can be evil then see the picture above.

Call people flat earthers for saying "it depends what the definitions are, that's why this argument has not settled the matter" and they have emotional reactions? Who would have thought?

Now quick "I didn't call you a flat earther, you're getting emotional!"

This is not rational discussion. This is trolling. And that is tiresome.

perpetualstudent wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 3:46pm:

Call people flat earthers for saying "it depends what the definitions are, that's why this argument has not settled the matter" and they have emotional reactions? Who would have thought? Now quick "I didn't call you a flat earther, you're getting emotional!" This is not rational discussion. This is trolling. And that is tiresome.

I didn't call you flat earther I said your argument is not good because it can be used by anyone with true or false basis . I didn't know that flatearther was such a big insult.

please try and argue against my first point , not only what you find insulting.

Sarosh wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 3:44pm:

@ Morphy I don't need to believe in god heaven or hell to see a mistake as an opportunity to learn.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Of course you didn't Morphy. He is trolling.

Ok well if you didn't see it either PS I'm not going to bother with responding to that. I've spent most of the last 30 hours with patients on an ambulance and I'm too tired to sort all this out.

I'm going to take a step back for a bit. I want to thank everyone for their thoughts. I love hearing other people's  opinions and whether we differed or not I really enjoy hearing the variety of different beliefs we have here.

That being said hopefully someone can shift the track of this thread to something more productive.

wow if you think I'm trolling then I'm very bad at expressing myself. :-?
Sorry for any insults and maybe being cynical with my arguments.
Thanks for the valid arguments for or against morality, nice discussion. I guess I should stop posting to this topic , it would be good for both parties.

perpetualstudent wrote on Oct 12^th, 2019 at 5:09pm:

Of course you didn't Morphy. He is trolling.

Don’t be so quick to write Sarosh off PS. He’s been expressing personal opinions, not trolling. Trolling implies that someone is saying things that they don’t actually believe for the purpose of goading others and disrupting the conversation. I don’t think that’s what Sarosh was doing, so please don’t be so dismissive.

Hitler.
Ok Godwin’s law is now complete.
(https://tinyurl.com/coft5ex )
Now we can move on to less controversial topics like politics, Glocks vs 1911s, or the Dallas Cowboys.

Dallas Cowboys are a basketball team right?

If you’re a Cowboys fan, they’re the best basketball team that ever lived!

I watched game one Astros v Yankees the other night. Hitler pitched a hell of a game.

Thanks a lot Morphy. You invoked Hitler again, and now we can’t talk about baseball either!