Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
For the most part, people know if they are doing something good, bad, or questionable. The priest was wrong. God always provides a way to those who take the time to look up and wonder.
But do you fall into the group that says, "you're wrong but that is your business" or the group that says, "you're wrong and I'll hate you until you agree with me!"?
But do you fall into the group that says, "you're wrong but that is your business" or the group that says, "you're wrong and I'll hate you until you agree with me!"?
But do you fall into the group that says, "you're wrong but that is your business" or the group that says, "you're wrong and I'll hate you until you agree with me!"?
Morality: a doctrine or system of morals Morals: principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
But there is no hard line in the sand that defines what is right or wrong conduct. What conduct may be right or wrong is as varied as stars in the universe, or grains of sand on the beach. Religions can't even agree within themselves about what is right or wrong according to their religion, let alone trying to agree with all the other religions in the world.
If you are trampling on the rights of another, you are doing wrong. If you aren't affecting someone else, if you aren't aiding in or supporting the trampling of rights, you're not doing anything wrong. That's it, really.
Interesting statement. But religion or the legal system didn't create our morals as human beings. Perhaps think empathy. I think you have to give human beings a little more credit.
As far as that above, that's where you have to have religion, like it or not legal laws are founded on religion. no matter what the atheist claim, in fact if they looked at the websters book for the meaning of religion, one would see being an atheist is following a religion.. but I regress.
The problems start because we as humans are in fact animals but we do everything we can to distance ourselves from that fact..
no animal on earth ask a female to have sex, they just do it, and at one time, even humans did the same.. Today that be called rape humans used to just take a female to be the wife, today that be kidnapping.. humans used to take what they needed or wanted from others, today that is stealing
all of the above was changed through religion long before government written laws..
Many are serving time for things that are animal nature, but because we as humans do everything to distance our species from that fact.. it is in the eyes of most religions, evil, and to most government law, illegal..
humans have gone to war for what others had, even just fire..(light/warmth) .
morals started because of our species to distance our kind from animals, and only way to do that is to make acting out natural things, bad/evil..
Are we better for it, I'd like to think so, but then again I never was a caveman so I can only go by/ follow the morals/rules already set in stone (10 comandments) or if you like the rule of law for all you atheist...
If you are trampling on the rights of another, you are doing wrong. If you aren't affecting someone else, if you aren't aiding in or supporting the trampling of rights, you're not doing anything wrong. That's it, really.
Thats such an open door that one could pretty much interpret it as they wish and call it correct though.
Originally posted by 2.5: True. I do ask myself at a point though do I believe anything? Do I make decisions? And based on what?
Everyone makes decisions. Almost none of them are actually based on faith. I presume the decisions you make are based on emotional input, past experience, and what available evidence you have.
Originally posted by dobey: Everyone makes decisions. Almost none of them are actually based on faith. I presume the decisions you make are based on emotional input, past experience, and what available evidence you have.
I would say faith is a word similar to morality with multiple layers and facets and is hard to describe especially in a group of people trying to use it to define something else.
If one does not decide what they believe, how are they making decisions, or are they letting other people make them for them?
That question comes up in my mind when someone talks about not understanding how someone can think someting is right , or wrong, for example.
If one tells themself they are a certain way, "moral" for example, but acts out their life as if there are no "lines" for lack of a better word, they seem to be fooling themself.
(I'm talking in generalities, not about anyone specific.)
Amoral -adjective 1. lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something: 2. being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply
- ... The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
Originally posted by 2.5: I would say faith is a word similar to morality with multiple layers and facets and is hard to describe especially in a group of people trying to use it to define something else.
If one does not decide what they believe, how are they making decisions, or are they letting other people make them for them?
That question comes up in my mind when someone talks about not understanding how someone can think someting is right , or wrong, for example.
Belief in anything, is not a prerequisite for making decisions. The computer in your car doesn't believe in anything. The branches of decisions it can make are very limited, but it simply takes information from the various inputs available to it, and makes decisions based on those values, and what the expected end of the current change curve is like.
Humans are no different. We do not require belief for our brains to make decisions. Some decisions are conscious. Some are not. Taking conscious action doesn't require belief. When your body tells you that you need to eat, you don't just automatically shove the nearest object into your face. You think about what things you've eaten recently, what things you like to eat, where you like to eat, how much money you want to spend on lunch, how much longer you have to wait for your lunch break, what in the snack machine might tide you over, etc… and then make a conscious decision based on all that information; your past experiences, your current situation, and what is available. Belief in some superior being, what is good or evil, or other such things, did not lead to that decision. Being mindful of how your actions may affect the world around you, also does not require such beliefs. All it requires is knowledge, understanding, and the presence of mind to think about the consequences before performing the action.
Whether needing to fulfil your body's own requirements of sustainability, or faced with the decision to kill, no grand belief in right and wrong, good and evil, is required.
but there was no garden no talking snake no tree of knowledge or eternal life ether and no angel with flaming sword on guard [but that would be hard to miss] so no original sin to be saved from and no need of a savior
btw killing yourself is seldom the answer to the worlds problems
You have firsthand knowledge of this? Or know someone who has firsthand knowledge?
We are not saved from original sin, but from sin, itself. One need only read the newspaper to understand that sin is rampant, but even the small, unreported stuff that doesn't match up is sin. Therefore, all need to be saved.
Jesus didn't "kill Himself." He allowed Himself to be killed so that all others could be saved.
I'll be back after the errands of the day for more.
Belief in anything, is not a prerequisite for making decisions. The computer in your car doesn't believe in anything. The branches of decisions it can make are very limited, but it simply takes information from the various inputs available to it, and makes decisions based on those values, and what the expected end of the current change curve is like.
Humans are no different. We do not require belief for our brains to make decisions. Some decisions are conscious. Some are not. Taking conscious action doesn't require belief. When your body tells you that you need to eat, you don't just automatically shove the nearest object into your face. You think about what things you've eaten recently, what things you like to eat, where you like to eat, how much money you want to spend on lunch, how much longer you have to wait for your lunch break, what in the snack machine might tide you over, etc… and then make a conscious decision based on all that information; your past experiences, your current situation, and what is available. Belief in some superior being, what is good or evil, or other such things, did not lead to that decision. Being mindful of how your actions may affect the world around you, also does not require such beliefs. All it requires is knowledge, understanding, and the presence of mind to think about the consequences before performing the action.
Whether needing to fulfil your body's own requirements of sustainability, or faced with the decision to kill, no grand belief in right and wrong, good and evil, is required.
You define belief differently than I as well. I think all the things you describe as ncessary do end in a belief system. Determining consequences, etc. I think your synopsis is very much over simplifying.
Also, "The computer in your car doesn't believe in anything. The branches of decisions it can make are very limited". Computers dont make decisions, they are programmed / told what to do. Limiting ones self to those types of decisions is very much what my point is in my 2 previous posts.
Originally posted by 2.5: You define belief differently than I as well. I think all the things you describe as ncessary do end in a belief system. Determining consequences, etc. I think your synopsis is very much over simplifying.
Also, "The computer in your car doesn't believe in anything. The branches of decisions it can make are very limited". Computers dont make decisions, they are programmed / told what to do. Limiting ones self to those types of decisions is very much what my point is in my 2 previous posts.
Computers do make decisions. Just like dogs, roaches, and any other animal with even the most primitive brains, do. Humans are programmed just like computers are, too. Just because something is not self-aware, doesn't mean it can't make decisions. It means the decisions it can make are simply limited to those that do not require awareness. The programming in your car's ECU is such that it has a set of decisions that can be made. However, it is not self aware, and therefore cannot determine how those decisions will affect itself, or those around it. As we advance technologically, so too do the amount of decisions that such technologies can make. For example, the amount of decisions a Fiero ECU can make are very small. The decisions the various modules in a current model year vehicle can make, are much broader. And the decisions that self-driving vehicles can make, go much further. There are computers that learn, too. The comparison between the decisions a human can make, and those a computer can make, are very apropos; especially in the current age where advancements in the understanding of the human brain, and in technology that can create sentient machines, are coming every day. That is exactly why many famous science fiction pieces examine such philosophical debates. isaac Asimov, Philip K. Dick, William Gibson, and many more have written novels exploring these ideas and philosophies. Many more TV shows, movies, and video games, have done so as well.
Belief: \n confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
I am merely using this definition of the term, as is commonly used. I am not over simplifying. I'm simply trying to describe things in an every day situation that is understandable and examinable. To talk about things vaguely in terms of "belief system" or religious faith, is to through out any viable discussion, and resort to subjective, and often petty, differences of opinion, rather than objective evidence.
When you go eat lunch, you almost certainly are going to eat something that you are confident you will like, based on rigorous proof from your past experiences. Maybe you'll try something new. But most likely you won't. Humans are afraid of change.
The comparison to computers and sentient machines of the future is poignant. It also explains a lot of what is going on in this world, the choices being made and the indifference, and the effects of that.
Truth isnt subjective in and of itself, but people are, and subsequently what we decide to do is as well. Since this is about people I dont think we can avoid that. Point of view matters. Motivation matters.
Maybe Worldview is a better term than belief in this context.
Where do morals begin?
"world·view NOUN
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world:
it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.
the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view."
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-17-2015).]
“Worldview can be expressed as the fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative presuppositions a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their lives”
The worldview of a tribe in ancient africa could mean cannibalism. The world view of modern America could mean abortion. The worldviews of the future could easily mean Soilent Green for dinner.
If he “morals” shift and change with the whims of society, and percieved or propagandised needs, and can lead to the above effects. My question is when times get hard what good are they? When times get hard we apparently eat our own. I look at some folks who talk of SHTF scenarios, and how "if you have a good weapon supply that’s all you need, you don’t need to store food or water, just take it."
Originally posted by 2.5: The comparison to computers and sentient machines of the future is poignant. It also explains a lot of what is going on in this world, the choices being made and the indifference, and the effects of that.
Truth isnt subjective in and of itself, but people are, and subsequently what we decide to do is as well. Since this is about people I dont think we can avoid that. Point of view matters. Motivation matters.
I thought this was about morality, not people.
What is going on in this world, is not indifference. It is arrogance and hate.
Truth is often an overloaded word as well. People often confuse faith and belief, as truth. Believing something is true, does not change whether it is in fact true, or not. And universal truths never change. If a universal truth ever becomes untrue, then it was never true, and not a universal truth. Life is not boolean, so trying to use true and false as what defines morality, what is good and evil, is flawed. Morals are not universal truths. They are constantly shifting and subjective things.
Originally posted by dobey: Believing something is true, does not change whether it is in fact true, or not. And universal truths never change. If a universal truth ever becomes untrue, then it was never true, and not a universal truth.
Yes I agree. Yes there is a fixed truth out there.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Life is not boolean, so trying to use true and false as what defines morality, what is good and evil, is flawed.
Depends on what is true doesnt it? If you can't know all you can do is believe, based on what goes into your world view. Either way you are making decisions based on it whether you try or not, or know it or not.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Morals are not universal truths. They are constantly shifting and subjective things.
They are acted out as such yes. But what are they based on? Hence the thread. If yes it is the whim of the society or those on power at a given time, then my last post contains much of my thoughts on it.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-17-2015).]
Humans are no different. We do not require belief for our brains to make decisions. Some decisions are conscious. Some are not. Taking conscious action doesn't require belief. When your body tells you that you need to eat, you don't just automatically shove the nearest object into your face. You think about what things you've eaten recently, what things you like to eat, where you like to eat, how much money you want to spend on lunch, how much longer you have to wait for your lunch break, what in the snack machine might tide you over, etc… and then make a conscious decision based on all that information; your past experiences, your current situation, and what is available. Belief in some superior being, what is good or evil, or other such things, did not lead to that decision. Being mindful of how your actions may affect the world around you, also does not require such beliefs. All it requires is knowledge, understanding, and the presence of mind to think about the consequences before performing the action.
Whether needing to fulfil your body's own requirements of sustainability, or faced with the decision to kill, no grand belief in right and wrong, good and evil, is required.
On the contrary. If you are an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim, you will not go into McDonalds and order a cheeseburger. I know that this is sacrilege here on the Forum, but, because of my upbringing, I still don't eat bacon.
Aside from being inappropriate (starting with the DVD) for my son, who was sitting next to me watching Mario videos on the TV, what does this have to do with the statement that I made?
Science is to the police investigation, that is axiomatic. However, where the police (in the animated example) are following the leads to the most likely conclusion, and following the adage, "When you eliminate the impossible, what is left, no matter how improbable, is likely the answer." I can't be certain, because I did not finish the video past the pubic hairs.... Most scientists, at least the ones who get the college and government grants (which come with no agenda, whatsoever....) are already predisposed to ignoring anything that even reeks of intelligent design, preferring to look at the clues and fit them into the predetermined theory. Sometimes the Police do this too, but they are considered the bad eggs, which brings us back to the morality debate.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: On the contrary. If you are an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim, you will not go into McDonalds and order a cheeseburger. I know that this is sacrilege here on the Forum, but, because of my upbringing, I still don't eat bacon.
Yes. But that is from tradition. If you are orhtodox Jew or Muslim (or Christian), you probably won't go into McDonald's anyway. McDonald's is not Kosher, nor Halal. But the rule of not eating pork is from a time when Trichinosis was a rampant problem when eating pork. Modern medicine, agriculture, and food safety regulations have nearly eliminated this problem. Other strains of the same bacteria can be found in other animals as well.
You were raised not eating pork, so you don't eat it.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Aside from being inappropriate (starting with the DVD) for my son, who was sitting next to me watching Mario videos on the TV, what does this have to do with the statement that I made?
Science is to the police investigation, that is axiomatic. However, where the police (in the animated example) are following the leads to the most likely conclusion, and following the adage, "When you eliminate the impossible, what is left, no matter how improbable, is likely the answer." I can't be certain, because I did not finish the video past the pubic hairs.... Most scientists, at least the ones who get the college and government grants (which come with no agenda, whatsoever....) are already predisposed to ignoring anything that even reeks of intelligent design, preferring to look at the clues and fit them into the predetermined theory. Sometimes the Police do this too, but they are considered the bad eggs, which brings us back to the morality debate.
It is relevant to the statement you made, because you pulled the "were you there?" question out. He wasn't there, nor were you, nor was Moses, nor Ken Hamm, nor the cabal of European priests that co-opted a story, albeit a tragic one, of one young person being wrongfully crucified over 200 years prior, by the same Europeans occupying the area, to create a new religion for subjugating the people of lands they desired to rule.
Or perhaps you're hiding some secret evidence that proves the existence of Eden, lay dormant in your basement, that somehow relates to the discussion of Morality? You weren't there. You can't prove this thing exists, And ray b cannot prove it doesn't exist. It is a fallacious argument.
It is relevant to the statement you made, because you pulled the "were you there?" question out. He wasn't there, nor were you, nor was Moses, nor Ken Hamm, nor the cabal of European priests that co-opted a story, albeit a tragic one, of one young person being wrongfully crucified over 200 years prior, by the same Europeans occupying the area, to create a new religion for subjugating the people of lands they desired to rule.
Or perhaps you're hiding some secret evidence that proves the existence of Eden, lay dormant in your basement, that somehow relates to the discussion of Morality? You weren't there. You can't prove this thing exists, And ray b cannot prove it doesn't exist. It is a fallacious argument.
My point, exactly. Without direct evidence, ray's statements of what there was or wasn't are false. The police can piece together a reasonable picture of what happened to the cartoon Ken's house by the evidence, and we can piece together a reasonable picture of Jesus from 2,000 years ago from multiple writings - better evidence than we have for any historical figure or literature, including Beowulf, Shakespeare, or Plato - not where he was on December 12th of 0004, but we know a lot about His last three years on Earth and what happened to most of His primary followers. What we can't do is to look back to the beginning of the Universe, look at the evidence, and determine exactly what happened. As said, some are predisposed to ignore one theory over another. ray has done this here, and it is not the only time. That's fine, and his prerogative, though he calls people who disagree with him various names (as do other people on PFF).
If I believe in God, which I do, then He is the Creator of the Universe. If I call it Intelligent Design, then He is the Inteligent Designer, and I find many clues to support that argument. He, therefore, is the ultimate arbiter of Morality, since He has put all of the rules in place, from how the four basic forces align and interact with each other, to "Thou shalt not kill (The Hebrew word is more akin to murder, though it's also come to mean "making someone poor")." If I believe that abortion is wrong but the death penalty isn't, and He says, "No, all killing is wrong.", then I have not aligned with His morality and I am responsible to Him for that. Fortunately, He has provided a sacrifice, as He had for Abraham in place of his son, Isaac.
So, O/T, morality, as liberty and Human rights, comes from the Creator, and I am among those who have strayed. Fortunately, I have also found forgiveness, and this is not a secret that I keep to myself.
