Christian, Morality, and Materialism

[Jet Grind]

Christian said this in another thread:

Originally posted by Chrsitian
I argued this point in a thread, morality is irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist.

Can this person point out why or can someone direct me to the thread he's talking about. I'd love to see the case he makes for this.

[Alyeska]

This Christian obviously has no understanding of sociology. Morality is not the sole domain of religion and has infact been around longer then organized religion ever has. It is a fallacy to assume that morality is solely bassed in religion. The simple fact that no religions can agree to a simple moral code and the fact that even religions such as Christianity change their moral code quite frequently states there is no universal moral code.

In other words this Christian you speak of is full of it.

(post edited to remove swear word upon learning of forum rules against swearing)

[sparklecat]

Perhaps absolute would fit better than relevant?


So people being unable to agree on something means that there is no truth of the matter? :)

[Yahweh]

I guess I forgot worldviews dictate morality...

And I dont think I got the memo that says Christians can feel better about themselves for demonizing the beliefs of others...


Wowwie wow, is my face red...

[Dorian Gray]

Morality is irrelevant to atheism? Holy smokes! Excuse me, I have some people to kill.
;)

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Morality is irrelevant to atheism? Holy smokes! Excuse me, I have some people to kill.
;)

You're just starting that NOW? You have some catching up to do if you want to over-take the score of...say the Catholic church.

[the_ignored]

Hah! You're not going to like this (http://www.worldbydesign.org/articles/implications/implic003.html)!

Have you ever seen so much bull in one article??

[rdaneel]

I have just the place to KILL EVERYONE!!! (http://homokaasu.org/killeveryone/kill.gas)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Perhaps absolute would fit better than relevant?


So people being unable to agree on something means that there is no truth of the matter? :)

Hmmmm?

"I argued this point in a thread, morality is absolute if you are an materialist/atheist."

Nope, that doesn't work :D

How about:

"I argued this point in a thread, morality is irabsolute if you are an materialist/atheist."

I don't think that's it either.... :D

But I do really like:

"I argued this point in a thread, morality is not absolute if you are an materialist/atheist."

Yes, I know, that's what you meant ;)

Oh, and I believe that Yahzi would argue against that, I don't want to label him (but I will!), but I think that he is an atheist/materialist and he believes morality is objectivly absolute.

Adam

[sparklecat]

Yes, well, I figured most here should be able to figure it out :p


Does he? I'd be interested to hear his argument for that.

[Keneke]

Since no one has said it in the thread yet....Welcome Alyeska!

[Christian]

You have taken the statement out of context. In this new thread the statement should read like this:

Morality should be irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Morality should be irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist
There's the assertion. Now let's hear the argument.

[Christian]

Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)
2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.

I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and lega or social codes of conducts. Once a rule of conduct becomes legal, then it ceases to be moral rule and becomes a legal rule.

When I say morality, I mean (it should be understood to be) the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. (If you are a materialist/atheist there is no other choice of definition).

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
You have taken the statement out of context. In this new thread the statement should read like this:

Morality should be irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist. That argument presupposes that morals are rooted in religion, that religion is the cause of morals. That, however, is not an accepted axiom. In fact, as a materialist, I hold the opposite to be the case: Religion is the product of morals. The evidence for this is that morals and codes of ethics preceded all of the currently existing religions, and that primitive cultures aquire moral codes before they aquire organized religion.

A secondary argument would be that religion has certainly not stopped people from being immoral :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Upchurch]

What was the original thread and what was the context of the statement?

[Christian]

MRC_Hans wrote:
That argument presupposes that morals are rooted in religion, that religion is the cause of morals.

Why would it presuppose that? It does not at all.

Upchurch wrote:
What was the original thread and what was the context of the statement?

I can't remember the name, it was a while back. I'm trying to give it context here.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Christian
When I say morality, I mean (it should be understood to be) the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. (If you are a materialist/atheist there is no other choice of definition).

By your argument, an atheist would never be able to successfully diet or eat healthy. Neither would atheists ever be able to abstain from sex before marriage or resist downloading pirated mp3's. The failure of any of these activities are socially acceptable (being overweight, premarital sex, pirating mp3's), yet I am sure some atheists abstain from some or all of these activities.

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
By your argument, an atheist would never be able to successfully diet or eat healthy. Neither would atheists ever be able to abstain from sex before marriage or resist downloading pirated mp3's. The failure of any of these activities are socially acceptable (being overweight, premarital sex, pirating mp3's), yet I am sure some atheists abstain from some or all of these activities.

Eating healthy has positive external consequences. Please read my statement again.

What are the positive external consequences of abstaining from sex (the ones you are thinking about)?

Downloading pirated mp3's is illegal (more than socially unacceptable).

Most atheist don't abstain from premarital sex and find no reason why they should.

[Keneke]

Alright then, please list some mundane activities which are moral, but have no social or legal ramifications. Then tell me that no atheist would do these activities.

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
Alright then, please list some mundane activities which are moral, but have no social or legal ramifications. Then tell me that no atheist would do these activities.

That's the point. My morals could be irrelevant to yours. Why don't you tell me some rules you hold and I will tell if as a materialist/atheist you should have them.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and legal or social codes of conducts. Once a rule of conduct becomes legal, then it ceases to be moral rule and becomes a legal rule.

Do you make a distinction between religious and secular legalism?
When I say morality, I mean [] the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. []

That one would place rules upon oneself presupposes that one may experience inner desires which must be supressed. Is this not equally the case for believer and atheist alike?

[Wile E. Coyote]

The irony of asserting that atheists have no real reason to be moral is that you are, in effect, saying that atheists are morally superior to theists.

Theists, by your claim, are moral out of fear of eternal damnation, so they have a reason. Atheists have only themselves standing in the way of immorality. Since it would be ridiculous to claim that atheists are never moral, knowing that they often are, then I submit that atheists are actually more moral than theists.

Whether or not they should have moral standards is irrelevant. Perhaps you are right. Why shouldn't I kill someone I don't like if I can get away with it? Maybe because I respect life, myself, and humanity in general. Maybe because it would just feel wrong. I don't know.

It just scares me to think that the only thing preventing the collapse of society is an imaginary being telling people not to be bad.

[Christian]

Dynamic wrote:
Do you make a distinction between religious and secular legalism?

From the legal academia there are four classifications of rules of conduct. Moral, social, religious and legal. To simplyfy, the social can absorb the religious into one category.

That one would place rules upon oneself presupposes that one may experience inner desires which must be supressed. Is this not equally the case for believer and atheist alike?

Correct. And good point. Why would you want to suppress inner desires that have no external negative consequences?

In the case of theists, there would be something to compell them.

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The irony of asserting that atheists have no real reason to be moral is that you are, in effect, saying that atheists are morally superior to theists.

No, that would not be the conclusion.

Theists, by your claim, are moral out of fear of eternal damnation, so they have a reason. Atheists have only themselves standing in the way of immorality. Since it would be ridiculous to claim that atheists are never moral, knowing that they often are, then I submit that atheists are actually more moral than theists.

Ok, I follow what you are saying. But an atheist being moral is a self-judgement. If you are the only judge and jury, you will always find yourself to be moral, it makes the standard useless.

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.

Whether or not they should have moral standards is irrelevant. Perhaps you are right. Why shouldn't I kill someone I don't like if I can get away with it? Maybe because I respect life, myself, and humanity in general. Maybe because it would just feel wrong. I don't know.

Luckily, is not up to you or me to decide. If you commit murder, you are under the threat of punishment. If you don't get away with it, then you will have to pay a steep price. I rely on the deterrent effect of laws to protect me from people committing murder.

Given the choice of living in either a land where I'm at the mercy of inhabitant's good will and of a land where there is the rule of law, I choose the latter.

It just scares me to think that the only thing preventing the collapse of society is an imaginary being telling people not to be bad.

No, what prevents the collapse of any society is the rule of law (social and legal)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Christian
Keneke wrote:
Alright then, please list some mundane activities which are moral, but have no social or legal ramifications. Then tell me that no atheist would do these activities.

That's the point. My morals could be irrelevant to yours. Why don't you tell me some rules you hold and I will tell if as a materialist/atheist you should have them.

Don't throw it back at me, you made the difference between morality and social condes of conduct! I'm saying that social codes of conduct IS morality, in part.

This looks awfully lot like an attempt at Christian (the religion, not the poster) superiority again.

[Keneke]

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.

We already do. Societal standards.

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
Don't throw it back at me, you made the difference between morality and social condes of conduct! I'm saying that social codes of conduct IS morality, in part.

This looks awfully lot like an attempt at Christian (the religion, not the poster) superiority again.

You are not getting my point. How am I suppose to know what you find moral or immoral? Morality to an materialist/atheist is a subjective standard. That means it depends on the SUBJECT.

It is irrelevant if I consider moral codes to be objective or not. To a materialist/atheist it must be subjective. There is no other choice.

So, the only one who can tell what is moral or not is you.

We already do. Societal standards.

So, then you agree with me, that morality should be irrelevant? Or are you saying you take your queues from social norms? And if so, who makes sure you enforce them?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, I follow what you are saying. But an atheist being moral is a self-judgement. If you are the only judge and jury, you will always find yourself to be moral, it makes the standard useless.

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.


Unfortunately, dropping morality in favor of an outside standard has its drawbacks. At some point you will come to a decision that is not covered in the Rules of Conduct and will be forced to make a decision on your own. In making this crucial decision you can only rely upon yourself.

By "Rules of Conduct" I also assume you are talking about some higher moral authority. You cannot be talking about law, because laws and morals are two separate entities and should not be mixed in philosophical discussion. Therefore, since there is no outer moral authority above man and his laws, and since these laws also provide insufficient coverage of morality, an individual is solely responsible for his or her morality. The highest morality, then, is what is perceived by the individual and those who are affected by the repercussions of that individual's moral standard.

The laws of gods are merely the laws of men. So theists are actually adhering the moral standards set by other men. This gives them leave to abandon the true higher moral authority, which is the self. Atheists adhere to the highest moral standard, when being moral.

My point is that a truly moral person follows an inner moral standard. This is not saying that merely believing oneself moral makes it so, regardless of actions (like Christianity), but that the individual is required to hold himself to that standard despite external influence, or lack thereof.

[slimshady2357]

If you limit 'morality' to not include any kind of 'rules for men to live successfully among other men' (which I think is what Christian is saying), then I agree with him to an extent.

I still don't think morality is irrelevant to an atheist/materialist, because people's morality (people like Christian) DO matter to me! For instance, if they are going to use their morality to override the laws and social mores of the place I live in, I want to know about it!

[side track]In university we had a fairly prominent ethical philosphy prof, he basically taught us that it was most useful to make a distinction between Ethics and Morals. In his class (at least) Ethics referred to a normative system of beliefs which was 'absolute' in some way. Whereas Morals dealt with the rules and laws men need to make to live together successfully.

Using this distinction, I think what Christian is saying is that Ethics should be irrelevant to an atheist/materialist.

And he does not deny that law, social mores and the such are of interest to the atheist/materialist.

Would you agree with that Christian? That you have restricted the meaning of morality to mean only what my old prof meant by 'Ethics'?[/side track]

Should you agree with that Christian, I agree that Ethics are not absolute to an atheist/materialist.

However, as stated above, this harldy makes them irrelevant! I could be highly interested in Ethics for a number of reasons.

1)Historically
2)Philosphically
3)Psychologically
4)To better understand the people around me

I'm sure more could be listed.

However, if your basic point was that it would be strange for an atheist/materialist to adopt any particular Ethic (remember, when I'm using that word it implies some kind of 'absolute' belief system), then I agree.

It certainly doesn't mean that they won't be moral though.

Adam

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Christian said:
You are not getting my point. How am I suppose to know what you find moral or immoral? Morality to an materialist/atheist is a subjective standard. That means it depends on the SUBJECT.
It's a subjective standard for Christians, too. It's just that a big bunch of Christians have agreed on the same standards (yeah, right, like they really have). There is no objective enforcement of these standards. A big bunch of atheists or Iowans or redheads could agree on some standards, too.

What are you saying other than "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all agree on some morals?"

~~ Paul

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Why would you want to suppress inner desires that have no external negative consequences?
How about negative internal consequences?

There are laws that come in the form of rules, which may be essentially arbitrary. I don't see how it matters what social institution was their source, they are just rules. Like any rules, some of these may be bent; others may be broken. And then there are laws which are of the nature of immutable laws of nature. I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence. There is no process of appeal, no negotiation -- this immutable law could not be changed by God himself (if there were such a being). Christianity (while acknowledging the existence of immutable laws) is based on the notion that it is indeed possible to obtain a special exemption. I regard that as not only hopelessly unrealistic, but as an essentially immoral attempt to avoid responsibility.

[Christian]

Wile E. Coyote

It's hard to debate when we are coming from different places. I understand what you are saying and the point you are making. Materialist/Atheists are morally superior because out of self-conviction (free of coersion) act morally. They don't need the threat the punishment or the promise of reward to act morally.

I do understand what you are saying.

But please note that in trying to make your point, you are missing the discussion.

slimshady2357 wrote:
If you limit 'morality' to not include any kind of 'rules for men to live successfully among other men' (which I think is what Christian is saying), then I agree with him to an extent.

Yes, correct morality are rules made by one for one. The classic example of a moral rule is thoughts (impure or pure). Materialists/atheists should make no such distinction.

I still don't think morality is irrelevant to an atheist/materialist, because people's morality (people like Christian) DO matter to me! For instance, if they are going to use their morality to override the laws and social mores of the place I live in, I want to know about it!

Good point. Once a rule spills over to the social and legal arena, then it has teeth, impact, it becomes relevant. If it stays as a moral norm, it has no impact or relevancy.

[side track]In university we had a fairly prominent ethical philosphy prof, he basically taught us that it was most useful to make a distinction between Ethics and Morals. In his class (at least) Ethics referred to a normative system of beliefs which was 'absolute' in some way. Whereas Morals dealt with the rules and laws men need to make to live together successfully.

Good, excellent. What the professor did in making such distinction is that he meant (I think) that Ethics is an OBJECTIVE normative system. The main difference is that morals are subjective.

This is why you can ascribe to an ethical code of conduct and be immoral. For example, lawyers have a duty to protect the client-lawyer secrecy priveledge. If a lawyer works in a pharmaceudical company that harmed patients, he is bound by the code of attorney ethics (please note that ethics belong in the category of social norms) not to disclose information, even though doing so would save lives. It is immoral, yet ethical. (and some could argue it is not immoral, the reason is that the standard is subjective)

Would you agree with that Christian? That you have restricted the meaning of morality to mean only what my old prof meant by 'Ethics'?[/side track]

Did I answer your question?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Christian

Yes, correct morality are rules made by one for one. The classic example of a moral rule is thoughts (impure or pure). Materialists/atheists should make no such distinction.

Good point. Once a rule spills over to the social and legal arena, then it has teeth, impact, it becomes relevant. If it stays as a moral norm, it has no impact or relevancy.

I think we might be talking past one another slightly, it seems to me you are saying morality, but meaning one's own personal morality (Ethics). In that case I can agree with 'irrelevant'. But I have been any Ethics in general.

When using the term morality, are you exclusively meaning the term 'one's own personal morality'?

Then I would agree with you, with the understanding that when you say morality, you mean (in my terms) 'one's own personal Ethics'.

Then I believe we are in agreement :)

Good, excellent. What the professor did in making such distinction is that he meant (I think) that Ethics is an OBJECTIVE normative system. The main difference is that morals are subjective.

Not quite the distinction I think he had in mind. However you are correct that he meant that Ethics are objective. Definitely.

Did I answer your question?

Pretty much :)

I think you skipped the rest of the post because you believed it was not relevant, this being due to the fact that you are using 'morality' to mean 'one's own personal Ethics'?

Is that correct?

If so, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Adam

[Fun2BFree]

Christian (and Christians) have bought a lie and continue to buy more lies-

So what is the External arbiter of what is Moral?
Where do we learn about this External Arbiter?
If you think it is in the Revealed Word of God how do you and most Christians decide which parts of the Revealed Word are the REALLY IMPORTANT PARTS and which are not so important or can be ignored like most Christians do (vows of poverty, etc) Last time I checked the REVEALED WORDS all are in the same typeface/font and don't come underlined?
Or is it that people using reason and logic determine what makes sense to achieve a certain end (negative or positive based on both external and internal factors) and then determine what is "moral" based on the consequences.

Christian- your argument fails because you throw around a lot of words that YOU think you have defined but you have not--you think believing in some Christian system is somehow External when in fact it is totally and completely INTERNAL--ther e is no external proof for the belief in God- none--the materialist/atheist morality and ethics are based entirely on EVIDENCE--what is the REAL measurable consequence of a behavior--If I do X how does it affect the REAL WORLD (which includes how I feel about myself and my relationship with others) When Christian does X apparently the consequence of importance is what happens in some made up "other world" for which there is no evidence...

Thanks--I will take the person whose morality is based in THIS WORLD and you can live with those lining up for their afterworld virgins and other rewards for "belief-based morality."

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian
Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)


Well, this just isn't true for this right-thinking Atheist. I feel no need to enforce my flavor of moral behaviour on others. Most people adhere to a different set of moral values - EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH. There are many fragments of Christianity, and moral choices are often the centerpeice of their differences.

Why should it be a requirement that my morals are inflicted on others? Is there some reason that my set of morals are better suited to everyone's life than their own? No. My moral decisions were made strictly in the context of what works in *my* life. Not everyone's.


2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.


I assert that if there are no consequences of an action, then it is morally null. That is, it makes no difference if you do it or not.

The fact is, there are real consequences in this life (ie, not "God's gunna get you") for every single example of moral behavior that has been mentioned in this thread.

I challenge you to argue that an action without any consequences for anyone is either moral or immoral. Of course, I find it hard to imagine such an action in the first place.


When I say morality, I mean (it should be understood to be) the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. (If you are a materialist/atheist there is no other choice of definition).

Doesn't "only enforceable by oneself" contradict your earlier definition?

This Atheist's morality - and I can't speak for anyone else - is based mainly around the idea that this life is all we have. This has been a much stronger sense of Right and Wrong for me than the Christian ethos was when I was a fundamentalist. Every second of every person's life is precious, and a very good system of behaviour can be extrapolated from this belief.

Of course - there is no "absolute" morality. Mine just works real well for me and endears me to most people I meet.

[Loki]

Christian,

Been here before! Scribble has covered it pretty well. You said :
Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)
But your definition says "self enforced". A moral code works for me because I enforce it. I can also seek to convince others to accept my code. So my moral code is enforceable on others via the process of my convincing them that they should "self-enforce" it also. Therefore a community morality arises from exchange of ideas, and personal responsibility.

2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.
This doesn't read correctly to me - I can't understand what you mean. You are saying that an atheist believes there are no external consequences for following a moral code? Or that an atheist believes there should not be consequences? Or thatn there cannot be external conseqeunces? In this world, or in an ideal world?

I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and lega or social codes of conducts.
I asked you once before - do you think that it's acceptable that the legal and moral codes be different? Do you believe that (some) immoral actions should *always* be legal? Do you believe that (some) legal actions should *always* be immoral? The legal code is nothing more than our *current* best attempt to write down a suitable moral code - if the two differ, it's because we're still working it out. In an ideal world, the two would be 'in sync', wouldn't they?

[Christian]

You will forgive if I don't address every single point. I'll do my best.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:
It's a subjective standard for Christians, too. It's just that a big bunch of Christians have agreed on the same standards (yeah, right, like they really have). There is no objective enforcement of these standards. A big bunch of atheists or Iowans or redheads could agree on some standards, too.

What are you saying other than "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all agree on some morals?"

It would be logical for a materialist/atheist to conclude that any morality (religious based or not) is subjective. As a materialist/atheist it is in your best interest that people agree on specific standards of conduct. If not, you find yourself having to put up with Christians (or any other religion) imposing their code on you.


Dynamic wrote:
How about negative internal consequences?

Can you give me examples of negative internal consequences?

I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence.

Be careful here, you are arguing that there are universal rules of moral conduct. You are close to saying there might be supernatural forces at work.

slimshady2357 wrote:
I think we might be talking past one another slightly, it seems to me you are saying morality, but meaning one's own personal morality (Ethics).

Ok, you want to make a distinction between general morality and personal morality? I don’t see how you can do that distinction but please tell me how. And you want to call personal morality Ethics. Ok, I don’t define ethics that way but if it will get the point across, ok.

When using the term morality, are you exclusively meaning the term 'one's own personal morality'?

Well, think about it, is there any other type of morality? Morality by definition is personal.

Then I would agree with you, with the understanding that when you say morality, you mean (in my terms) 'one's own personal Ethics'.

Ok, I can appreciate that.

think you skipped the rest of the post because you believed it was not relevant, this being due to the fact that you are using 'morality' to mean 'one's own personal Ethics'?

Is that correct?

Yes, absolutely.

If so, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Ok.

I’ve seen your other posts and you seem to write much more clear than me. So, please stick around and maybe you can help me when I’m not able to explain myself.

Fun2Bfree wrote:
Christian- your argument fails because you throw around a lot of words that YOU think you have defined but you have not--you think believing in some Christian system is somehow External when in fact it is totally and completely INTERNAL

I’m just going to comment on this part. Yes, you our correct, from the materialist/atheist point of view, my morality is completely internal (from that point of view, I’m only diluting myself into thinking is it external, I get that, but please note that that is not the point of the discussion)


Scribble wrote:
Well, this just isn't true for this right-thinking Atheist. I feel no need to enforce my flavor of moral behaviour on others.

My point is that a standard that shifts (or that there is no way of knowing if it is being followed or not) is useless. If only you know you are following your flavor of moral behavior and you are not accountable to anyone or anything for it, you will always be 100% moral in your eyes. What is the use of such a code of conduct?

Why should it be a requirement that my morals are inflicted on others? Is there some reason that my set of morals are better suited to everyone's life than their own? No. My moral decisions were made strictly in the context of what works in *my* life. Not everyone's.

So don’t call it morals, call them preferences, tastes, inclinations. Morality is a code of conduct that must be followed. See, it MUST BE FOLLOWED. If it doesn’t have to be followed, then it is not a code.

The distinction I’m making is that (please, this is the important part) for a materialist/atheist this code is self-imposed and there is no accountability to anyone else for it. And, with your comments, you are supporting that point.

The fact is, there are real consequences in this life (ie, not "God's gunna get you") for every single example of moral behavior that has been mentioned in this thread.

All of the example (except mine on thoughts) have not been examples of moral rules.

I challenge you to argue that an action without any consequences for anyone is either moral or immoral. Of course, I find it hard to imagine such an action in the first place.

To me, imagining in my mind that I’m raping a woman is immoral. I see no reason whatsoever for a materialist/atheist to find that immoral at all. If materialism/atheism is correct, nothing that one thinks brings negative outside consequences. If that view is correct, you are free to think and imagine whatever you like. There are no repercussions, no consequences, no effects.

Doesn't "only enforceable by oneself" contradict your earlier definition?

No. Why does it?

You are the only one who can control you morality. You impose the rules and you enforce them on yourself.

Of course - there is no "absolute" morality. Mine just works real well for me and endears me to most people I meet.

The problem is that you are the judge and jury. When you say it works for you, you are the only one judging that and it will always be a true statement. What is the purpose of such a code if it is useless as a standard.

If you said “I’m fit and healthy”, there is a standard that you can use to check if you are correct or only diluting yourself into thinking you are.

When you say you are moral, how do you know? If you don’t want to impose your morality on others (I suspect because you believe it is personal) and you don’t want no one to impose it on you, how do you know you are moral? If only your opinion counts, then you will always be moral. What’s the purpose measuring a state that is always so, that never changes?

Loki wrote:
Been here before! Scribble has covered it pretty well.

So, also see my responses to scribble.

So my moral code is enforceable on others via the process of my convincing them that they should "self-enforce" it also.

That’s not what enforceable means. Enforceable means that I can make you comply even if you don’t want to or I can punish you if you don’t comply.

You are saying that an atheist believes there are no external consequences for following a moral code?

Yes, absolutely. Isn’t this precisely why materialists/atheist say they are morality superior to religious people. Their argument is that even though there are no negative external consequences to their actions (or that they don’t need an imaginary entity threatening them with a punishment or offering a reward) they choose to act morality out of their own volition free of any coercion.

I asked you once before - do you think that it's acceptable that the legal and moral codes be different?

Ok, let’s try this. Suppose you were in class and the teacher asked you: Mr. Loki can you tell me the difference between a moral rule and a legal rule? What would you answer?

I hope you can see that we make a distinction between a moral rule and a legal rule. If not, they would be called the same. Why don’t you take a stab at this one? What is the difference between a social norm and a legal norm?

The legal code is nothing more than our *current* best attempt to write down a suitable moral code - if the two differ, it's because we're still working it out. In an ideal world, the two would be 'in sync', wouldn't they?

Ok, I’m trying to get you on the same page here. Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make (it is your last sentence). But, you are missing the point I’m discussing.

Please note from your comment that you make a distinction between moral codes and legal codes. This is obvious because you call them separately, you call them both CODES. So, what makes one a moral rule and one a legal rule? What is the difference? If you answer that Loki, we will be in the same place.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, you want to make a distinction between general morality and personal morality? I don’t see how you can do that distinction but please tell me how. And you want to call personal morality Ethics. Ok, I don’t define ethics that way but if it will get the point across, ok.

Ya, I think we have a terminology problem, but we are getting past it :)

I think whenever I type 'Ethics' you can read it as 'morality' (and vice versa) and we'll be fine.

I make a distiction between personal Ethics and just Ethics because there are groups of people who take on common Ethics. So that you could talk about a certain group's Ethics. For instance if I am talking about Personal Rights theory, that is an Ethical theory, not necesarily of one person.

But I do agree that each person will take on their own personal Ethical system (perhaps none!).
Well, think about it, is there any other type of morality? Morality by definition is personal.
Well as I said, I don't think so, but I don't think it really matters either :)
Ok.

I’ve seen your other posts and you seem to write much more clear than me. So, please stick around and maybe you can help me when I’m not able to explain myself.
I'll see what I can do, but without a trace of false modesty, I don't think I'm very good at communicating my ideas. I get frustrated by my inadequacy in this department a heck of a lot.

But, like I said, I'll see what I can do!

To anyone who is reading this:

Read the side-track I wrote above about the difference between Ethics and Morals that my old Phil Prof used to make, then imagine that Christian is talking about some 'objective (or absolute) Ethical theory' that you might take on.

I think many of your disagreements will disappear.

Do you hold to what you believe is an 'absolute, objective Ethical theory?'

Or do you rather base your actions in general on 'how to live well amongst other humans'?

Adam

[Dancing David]

Negative internal consequence: the shame I would feel if I fantasied about having sex with my daughter.

Morals are morals: Cgristian why is a belief in god needed for morals. Is that not a semantic distinction?

For example there may be a burglar who , never steals from 'poor' people, gives ten percent to charity and would never commit rape. It is against that person's morals to steal from the poor and commit rape.

I think that what you are doing is defining morals to be absolute morals, is that what I thought you wrote?

[Loki]

Christian,

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make (it is your last sentence). But, you are missing the point I’m discussing.
Obviously, and repeatedly! Yes, I still don't really understand your thinking here, despite numerous attempts at clarification...

Please note from your comment that you make a distinction between moral codes and legal codes. This is obvious because you call them separately, you call them both CODES. So, what makes one a moral rule and one a legal rule? What is the difference? If you answer that Loki, we will be in the same place.
We'll be in the same place? Perhaps ... I see the differnece between "moral" and "legal" as a practical difference. In theory, they should be the same 'code', but the realities of living in a complex world require legislation (shop trading hours, for example?) that have a practical rather than moral basis. Immoral acts should be illegal. Illegal acts are not always immoral.

(your answers to scribble)
If only you know you are following your flavor of moral behavior and you are not accountable to anyone or anything for it, you will always be 100% moral in your eyes.
NO, I will be "100% moral" when my behaviour matches my expectations - which it often doesn't.

What is the use of such a code of conduct?
It gives me a framework to measure my daily behaviour against - I'm winning, or losing, and I can tell which.

I think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals". You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself. I reject this - my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.

There is a simple axiom underlying my position - that "being moral is better than not being moral". Then apply the process for defining morals, and finally end up with "behaviour". In this system, your argument seems to hold no weight.

Are you really asking "why does any atheist think it is better to be moral than immoral?"

[slimshady2357]

Loki, what do you mean by 'morals', 'being moral', 'the process for defining morals'?

I think your difference is only a semantic one in the end.

Adam

[scribble]

So don’t call it morals, call them preferences, tastes, inclinations. Morality is a code of conduct that must be followed. See, it MUST BE FOLLOWED. If it doesn’t have to be followed, then it is not a code.


I cannot think of any rules set in any manner for humanity that MUST BE FOLLOWED. Can you give me an example of the sort of thing you're talking about?

[Loki]

slimshady2357,

As requested, definitions :

'morals' : (Gee - ask a hard question why don't you :) ) How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.

'being moral' : Acting in accordance with one's morals - essentially an internal process.

'the process for defining morals' : How one's morals are established/reviewed/revised - essentially an external process (morals are initialy installed by parents/society, then reviewed/developed via exchange of ideas with others).


I think your difference is only a semantic one in the end.

Which "difference" are you referring to? The difference between "being moral" and "developing morals"? I don't see that as semantics - one is developing the rules of the game, the other is playing the game. They are two different things.

They interact of course - you can revise the rules after watching the game being played. This I think is at the heart of Christian's position - that atheists will (or should) simply change the rules if the game is going poorly for them, rather than try to lift the level of their play. Humanism (it seems to me) suggests that the correct course is to develop the rules as a community (using 'reason' as the primary toolset), and to apply the rules (play the game) individually.

In regard to the "absolute/relative" debate, I think it's possible that morals are "absolute", if by this you mean "a single set of rules that perfectly balances human individual and collective needs". Morals are (currently) relative because they change to reflect developing thoughts about the nature of this balance. Perhaps morals must *always* be relative, because the perfect balance is always moving (evolution, etc), but it seems at least theoretically possible that for a given state of humanity, a single "moral code" is possible (this doesn't mean that all humans would accept such a code - just that they should!)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Loki
slimshady2357,

As requestedYou're good to me :D
definitions :

'morals' : (Gee - ask a hard question why don't you :) ) How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.

'being moral' : Acting in accordance with one's morals - essentially an internal process.

'the process for defining morals' : How one's morals are established/reviewed/revised - essentially an external process (morals are initialy installed by parents/society, then reviewed/developed via exchange of ideas with others).

Under these definitions, I think Christian is only really talking about the last one. The first two would (I'm guessing, once we hash out some more things) actually fall under what Christian is excluding from his definition of 'morality', i.e. what I have been calling 'Morals'.Which "difference" are you referring to? The difference between "being moral" and "developing morals"? I don't see that as semantics - one is developing the rules of the game, the other is playing the game. They are two different things.No, I didn't mean that. I agree, 'being moral' and 'the process for defining morals' are different things :)
They interact of course - you can revise the rules after watching the game being played. This I think is at the heart of Christian's position - that atheists will (or should) simply change the rules if the game is going poorly for them, rather than try to lift the level of their play.
I understand that you believe he is going there with it, and I believe he might be as well, but I would say that he has shown nothing of the sort so far!
Humanism (it seems to me) suggests that the correct course is to develop the rules as a community (using 'reason' as the primary toolset), and to apply the rules (play the game) individually.
Ok, here is where I think we would see you falling outside the realm of 'objective Ethics' in the sense of an absolute normative system of belief and move into the realm of 'Morals' in the sense of finding a (the best?) way for people to live together successfully (by which I mean happily :)).

This is the semantic part, where I think Christian and you have no disagreentment really, only a difference in terms.

In regard to the "absolute/relative" debate, I think it's possible that morals are "absolute", if by this you mean "a single set of rules that perfectly balances human individual and collective needs".

This is exactly what I meant when I said Yahzi would argue that Morals are objective, yet is an atheist/materialist. It is entirely possible that there are a set or slightly malleable set of rules which best satisfies all needs in this regards.

For me, with the definitions of Ethics and Morals I am using, once you started saying that your 'objective Morals', (perhaps reached through science one day!) are absolutely correct, I would then say it has moved into an Ethical system for you. It would no longer be subjective.

Although I think it is possible I doubt that such a set of rules exists. But I think it's an interesting question to ponder.
Morals are (currently) relative because they change to reflect developing thoughts about the nature of this balance. Perhaps morals must *always* be relative, because the perfect balance is always moving (evolution, etc), but it seems at least theoretically possible that for a given state of humanity, a single "moral code" is possible (this doesn't mean that all humans would accept such a code - just that they should!)

I consider those to be interesting ponderings of the kind I just mentioned :)

Adam

[Alyeska]

Originally posted by Keneke
Since no one has said it in the thread yet....Welcome Alyeska!

Gee, thanks. I do believe my registration date is somewhat older then yours.;)

[Loki]

slimshady2357,

This is the semantic part, where I think Christian and you have no disagreentment really, only a difference in terms.

Quite possible - I just don't have a clear picture of exactly what Christian is saying, so perhaps I do agree with him but we use different terms. I'll await further clarification from him...

For me, with the definitions of Ethics and Morals I am using, once you started saying that your 'objective Morals', (perhaps reached through science one day!) are absolutely correct, I would then say it has moved into an Ethical system for you. It would no longer be subjective.
I need to review some definitions of Ethics and objective Morals - it's entirely possible I agree with you here!

Although I think it is possible I doubt that such a set of rules exists.
Since I start from the assumption that universe is (a) always changing and (b) unguided, then I also doubt that such a 'standard' is possible - although perhaps it's more accurate to say that I can't see such a standard code surviving the passage of time. Like everything else, I think it probably must change - for example, if humanity was to evolve to the point where both men and woman could bear children, then the 'rules' would necessarily change also.

But I think it's an interesting question to ponder.
And pondering is all I'm doing...

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]slimshady2357,


Quite possible - I just don't have a clear picture of exactly what Christian is saying, so perhaps I do agree with him but we use different terms. I'll await further clarification from him...

Good idea. I could be off on some wild goose chase somewhere wasting our time :DI need to review some definitions of Ethics and objective Morals - it's entirely possible I agree with you here!Here's the problem, I am using them how I think about the terms (thanks to Prof. N.), because I found it a very useful way to make a distinction between what I believe are different things. Or at least different ways people us terms like morals and ethics.

It's in the [side-track] from one of my first posts in this thread.

I don't need, request, or certainly demand anyone use those definitions. I use them and try to explain them only because it helps me and I think it will help others possibly.Since I start from the assumption that universe is (a) always changing and (b) unguided, then I also doubt that such a 'standard' is possible - although perhaps it's more accurate to say that I can't see such a standard code surviving the passage of time. Like everything else, I think it probably must change - for example, if humanity was to evolve to the point where both men and woman could bear children, then the 'rules' would necessarily change also.

And pondering is all I'm doing... Me too :)

Adam

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Loki
slimshady2357,

As requested, definitions :

'morals' : (Gee - ask a hard question why don't you :) ) How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.



...and herein lies the problem--this defines very little...what is good? What is bad? One might just as easily ask what is a "good" temperature for water? It all depends on what you want the water for...to drink, to make tea, to make ice cubes, to swim in, to bathe in...the answer will depend on what the REAL WORLD purpose or end point is...since we are hard wired by a long evolutionary natural selection to avoid pain both physical and emotional we are bound to seek behaviours that accomplish this..therein lies morality--any movement towards behaviour that creates more pain physical and emotional will weaken the species and lead to its extinction--so is it immoral to imagine something that is real if IT NEVER leads to any negative consequences? No but the fact is very few would either not act out such immoral behaviours or if they did not they would be emotionally pained by them..if they were not pained by them why wouldn't they act on them? Is it immoral to deny the existence of the son of God? For most that do there do not appear to be any negative consequences that can be demonstrated in this materialist world...so no it is not immoral..For the nonmaterialist -you can imagine internally anything you want including justification for raping little girls (Immanuel/Elizabeth Smart) or flying planes into buildings (9/11) or secretly diluting chemotherapy drugs to the level of inactivity(KC pharmacist tryin to make his pledge to his Catholic church) or selling CIA secrets (Hansen another church pledger if I recall correctly) or murdering wives (Mormons in that book by jon krakauer) or wearing purple sneakers pulling a shroud over you head after castrating yourself and taking poisoned Jello (Comet chasing morons in California)..etc etc. etc.

The only useful moral codes are firmly grounded in the REAL (materialist) world because they are only useful and can only be judged useful or not in this REAL (materialist) world.

[Ossai]

From all the way back on the first page (because I didn't have time yesterday)

Christian
Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)
2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.
Incorrect on both counts.
1. Morals are useful if they enhance survivability of the individual and the group.
2. #1 deals with both positive (life) and negative (death) consequences - there are of course others but those are the driving force.


I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and lega or social codes of conducts. Once a rule of conduct becomes legal, then it ceases to be moral rule and becomes a legal rule.
Can you give an example of a moral rule that is not a legal rule?

When I say morality, I mean (it should be understood to be) the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. (If you are a materialist/atheist there is no other choice of definition). Incorrect, society as well as the individual place and enforce the rules.

Your entire stance is flawed in that you assume morals originate from religion. Since that is your basic premise please prove it then continue from that point.

Ossai

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Alyeska


Gee, thanks. I do believe my registration date is somewhat older then yours.;)

You know, I didn't even notice that. You must be one mega-lurker.

[plindboe]

*Sigh* Not this discussion again. People have explained it all thoroughly to Christian before, but I guess it didn't sink in. Just give up. Christian will have that belief the rest of his life, no matter how many times people explain it to him.

[Christian]

Dancing David wrote:
Negative internal consequence: the shame I would feel if I fantasied about having sex with my daughter.

Yes, but you choose to feel the shame. If you chose not to feel the shame, then, you would have none. And considered what I said, there are no negative external consequences of fantasizing about that.

Morals are morals: Cgristian why is a belief in god needed for morals. Is that not a semantic distinction?

No belief in God is need to have morals. My assertion is that morality should be irrelevant, useless if there is no God. You can have them, but they serve no purpose as a code of conduct.

For example there may be a burglar who , never steals from 'poor' people, gives ten percent to charity and would never commit rape. It is against that person's morals to steal from the poor and commit rape.

The problem here is always reference. Regardless of the burglar’s morals, stealing and raping is illegal. His morality is irrelevant. Whether it goes against his morality or not, it is prohibited to do it.
And here we have the mayor distinction between moral norms and legal norms.

Loki wrote:
Obviously, and repeatedly! Yes, I still don't really understand your thinking here, despite numerous attempts at clarification...

The problem, I think, is that we are coming from different frameworks. I’ll try to fix that (hopefully).

We'll be in the same place? Perhaps ... I see the differnece between "moral" and "legal" as a practical difference. In theory, they should be the same 'code', but the realities of living in a complex world require legislation (shop trading hours, for example?) that have a practical rather than moral basis. Immoral acts should be illegal. Illegal acts are not always immoral.

Ok, please read this next part carefully.

If I asked you, what is the difference between a boy from Brazil and a girl from Italy, you could answer in many ways. You could say that the boys parents are different than the girls parents. You could say that they come from different countries, and you could say that they are from different races. But you are missing the fundamental difference between a boy and a girl. Forget one is from Brazil and have different parents (forget for now the source of norms). I’ll explain further

When you answer that they are the same code, what you are saying is that says, that boy and girl both are human. And you are correct moral norms and legal norms are both norms. But you are missing the fundamental difference between a boy and a girl. (you know their reproductive systems, the XY thing). Ok, so I will try to show you the fundamental difference between a moral norm and a legal norm. You know, why is one fall under the category of moral and another of legal.

Ok, the problem too, is that you want to say that moral can be a subset of legal and vice versa. The rule that I’m putting (that you don’t want to accept I take) is that the categories are mutually exclusive. Once a moral or social norm becomes a legal norm, it stops being a moral norm. Yes, initially it started out as a moral norm but then it changed to a legal.
What I want you to see is WHAT changed it, what was it that made this norm change category.

Sure, you can say that your moral norms are exactly like the legal norms (you know, you could say, if there weren’t any laws, I would adopt those as my code of conduct) but the thing becomes moot because whether you like it or not, whether they are you own code, you have to follow legal norms. You have to.

Let’s get some definitions out of the way too:

Norms = rules of conduct
Moral norms = moral rules of conduct
Legal norms = legal rules of conduct.
Social norms = social rules of conduct

Examples of each:

Moral norm = I shall refrain from fantasizing of decapitating my neighbor.
Legal norm = The speed limit of this road is 45 mph.
Social norm = This restaurant does not allow patrons to be shirtless.

Let me show you the fundamental difference. The main difference between legal norms and moral norms is that legal norms MUST be followed penalty of punishment from an outside source.

Give me an example of a moral norm you hold and I will show you exactly the difference.

Suppose I were an materialist/atheist and I had this norm of not cursing anywhere including the privacy of my house. What would happen if I did curse in my house. There is no way an outside source can punish me for it.

Now this, there is no way someone can make me stop.

NO, I will be "100% moral" when my behaviour matches my expectations - which it often doesn't.

Yes, ok, you can take this position, but if you wanted, you could be 100% moral every second of everyday, right. If you wanted. And only you know how often you are off the mark. And the mark may be moved anytime for any reason.

And suppose you are always true to yourself, can you have that assumption on everyone else?

think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals". You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself. I reject this - my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.

Let me see if with these comment I can fix the miscommunication.

think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals".

Because it is irrelevant to my point. The source (how you got them) is irrelevant to the quality they possess. Now the applying part, ok, depending on the qualitative nature of the norms, yes, the applicability is affected.

You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself.

I’m stating that this is one quality of moral norms in general. I can change what I feel is right in an instant, what I thought was right yesterday I might not today. So, I can change my moral norms. Now, it is irrelevant why I changed, ( it can be indulgence, enlightenment, masochism, etc.)

Not the case with legal norms. I can’t wake up one day and say, “ok, today I have decided that raping is good, I will rape from now on.”

my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.

As I said, the source of your morality is irrelevant. One day, you may decide to change all of them in favor of a new set, (coming from a combination of your human reasoning and external influences). It won’t change the fact that you can decide in an instant to disregard them yet again in an instant.

Are you really asking "why does any atheist think it is better to be moral than immoral?"

For a materialist/atheist the best strategy is to strive for a social and legal standard of conduct.

Maybe a computer analogy will help. What good is the ASCII code if only you use it?

Scribble wrote:
I cannot think of any rules set in any manner for humanity that MUST BE FOLLOWED. Can you give me an example of the sort of thing you're talking about?

That is my point. Codes (rules) are made to be followed. Why make up a rule if you have not intention of following it.

Think about it. When you create rules (by default) you create the consequences of not following them. What is the use/purpose/application of rules that have no consequences if not followed?

If I may be so bold (and excuse the personal question) can you tell me of a moral rule you broke recently and the consequence you suffered for it? I don’t want to put you on the spot here, it just for illustration only.

Loki wrote
'morals' :…How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.

I would say a set of rules of conduct (rules based on what is considered good or bad behavior)

'being moral' : Acting in accordance with one's morals - essentially an internal process.

Agreed.

'the process for defining morals' : How one's morals are established/reviewed/revised - essentially an external process (morals are initialy installed by parents/society, then reviewed/developed via exchange of ideas with others).

A materialist/atheist view. It is ok, irrelevant to our discussion.

This I think is at the heart of Christian's position - that atheists will (or should) simply change the rules if the game is going poorly for them, rather than try to lift the level of their play.

No, no, no. My position is that morality is a one person game created by the person and refereed by the person. Not even solitaire is like that.

To me (using your analogy) the only way to lift the level of play for an materialist/atheist (and this is what I know of human nature) is to be accountable to other players and a referee. This simply does not exist in materialist/atheists morality: accountability

Humanism (it seems to me) suggests that the correct course is to develop the rules as a community (using 'reason' as the primary toolset), and to apply the rules (play the game) individually.

I agree that the first part is the best strategy for a materialist/atheist (from now on MA) but the second part is flawed. Once you take the rules to the individual level there is no guarantee that they will be kept intact or that they will be followed at all.


Ossai wrote:
Incorrect on both counts.
1. Morals are useful if they enhance survivability of the individual and the group.
2. #1 deals with both positive (life) and negative (death) consequences - there are of course others but those are the driving force.

1. You are presupposing that they are enforceable in the group, that nullifies its moral nature. By definitions, you as a MA (if you are) believe no one can impose his/her morality on you and you cannot impose your morality on anyone. So, how can you enhance survivability if it’s a non-enforceable, voluntary code?
2. There are no negative external consequences to violating moral norms. Again, this should be the view of a MA. I challenge you to give a moral norm that has negative external consequences. You will not find one that does not fall under the category of social or legal norms, I assure you that the negative external consequences will come from others, them be society or the State.

Can you give an example of a moral rule that is not a legal rule?

Sure I can give you several of mine:

1. No cursing
2. No thoughts of murdering other people
3. No coveting my neighbor’s wife.

Incorrect, society as well as the individual place and enforce the rules.

Please read above, to me and it should be evident to you, society can impose its morality on a MA.

Your entire stance is flawed in that you assume morals originate from religion.

Where did you get this from. Absolutely not.

Plindboe wrote:
*Sigh* Not this discussion again. People have explained it all thoroughly to Christian before, but I guess it didn't sink in. Just give up. Christian will have that belief the rest of his life, no matter how many times people explain it to him

Glad you can join the discussion, yet again.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Christian
Dancing David wrote:

To me (using your analogy) the only way to lift the level of play for an materialist/atheist (and this is what I know of human nature) is to be accountable to other players and a referee. This simply does not exist in materialist/atheists morality: accountability


Christian - your strawman argument fails on every level. YOu have the whole situation completely wrong and backwards. A materialist actually has accountability. In real life--morals are completely defined by real accountable (that is stuff that can somehow be counted, or measured or rationed--as in rational) IT is entirely based on RATIONAL parameters...the nonmaterialists rules are not accountable --the supposed accountablity is never done...unless you think it happens in the next world--the world for which there is no proof whatsoever...that is why so many horrendous crimes against fellow humans are carried out in the name of so many irrational, nonmaterialist belief systems from the beginning of their existence-

Shame is not a chosen emotion--that is a complete and utter distortion of how human brains and neurotransmitters work. You have demonstrated no understanding of chosen vs hard wired phenomena, between rational and irrational or between the truth and the enormous lies and distortions you are proposing. You have not convinced anyone on this thread either because you are a terrible communicator or your argument sucks...your choice.

[Loki]

Christian,

I agree with much of your last post, although the way you choose to express it is different to the way I would. The distinction you draw between moral and legal norms is fine with me - it's in essence what I meant by a 'pactical distinction'.

But I think we disagree in two key areas :

The source (how you got them) is irrelevant to the quality they possess.
...
It won’t change the fact that you can decide in an instant to disregard them yet again in an instant.
This seems to me to be a exaggeration to try and make the point - you portray a relative moral framework as being "utterly changable", able to take contradictory positons on a day by day basis. I find this a gross over simplification. The reason I focus on the "process" (while you dismiss it as 'irrelevant') is because I believe the process strongly favors gradual change over erratic change - and therefore acts as a 'safeguard' against the problems you are seeing.

Your point (I think) : "If morals have only internal consequecnes, then they can be changed at any tiem, any where, to anything"
My Reply : "Even if morals have only internal consequences, this does not imply they can be changed easily."

A 'moral person' is someone who (a) tries to follow his morals and (b) has a good system for reviewing the moral framework.

To me (using your analogy) the only way to lift the level of play for an materialist/atheist (and this is what I know of human nature) is to be accountable to other players and a referee. This simply does not exist in materialist/atheists morality: accountability
...
I agree that the first part is the best strategy for a materialist/atheist (from now on MA) but the second part is flawed. Once you take the rules to the individual level there is no guarantee that they will be kept intact or that they will be followed at all
Perhaps I need to bring in the "Golden Rule" - as I like to think of it, "respect for others". Given this as the one unchangeable, irreversible moral rule, accountability simply arises from the interaction of myself and the rest of humanity. To me, this one moral rule is exempt from "review" - it underpins the entire system.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
The reason I focus on the "process" (while you dismiss it as 'irrelevant') is because I believe the process strongly favors gradual change over erratic change - and therefore acts as a 'safeguard' against the problems you are seeing.

This is an interesting point. What you are saying is that because it is a process that has taken a while to be in place, it is not easy to shake it. I'm a slave of my habits kind of thing.

Your point (I think) : "If morals have only internal consequecnes, then they can be changed at any tiem, any where, to anything"
My Reply : "Even if morals have only internal consequences, this does not imply they can be changed easily."

Ok, I can buy this point.

You are saying that because humans are what they are, change is not easy. The system is regulated this way.

Still, you can appreciate that the foundation is not a solid one, even though, there is one.

[Loki]

Christian,

Still, you can appreciate that the foundation is not a solid one, even though, there is one.
By any practical measure, it's as solid as your foundation. We both believe that (a) we have a current 'moral framework', (b) that this current framework *might* be improved, and (c) that the process of improving it is through the exercise of human reason and exchange of ideas. The only place we differ is that you see the bible as being a primary source that you need to apply your reason to in order to find the improvements, and I think the bible is irrelevant.

Two hundred years ago many chistians in the USA thought that racism was a moral behaviour, and used the bible to support this position. Today, most christian think of racism as an immoral behaviour, and can offer the bible as support. The book didn't change, the interpretation did - because people discussed ideas.

Same process, really.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
By any practical measure, it's as solid as your foundation.

From your perspective, yes you are correct. If there is no God, I'm just lying to myself, and the framework is as solid as any.

From my perspective this is not the case. To me, moral norms are external with external consequences (this being the fundamental difference)

We both believe that (a) we have a current 'moral framework', (b) that this current framework *might* be improved, and (c) that the process of improving it is through the exercise of human reason and exchange of ideas.

a)Yes
b)No, I believe that my current understand of the framework can be improved.
c)Yes, and my personal relationship with God.

The only place we differ is that you see the bible as being a primary source that you need to apply your reason to in order to find the improvements

And my relationship with God.

...and I think the bible is irrelevant.

I understand.

Two hundred years ago many chistians in the USA thought that racism was a moral behaviour, and used the bible to support this position.

And many did not.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Christian


From my perspective this is not the case. To me, moral norms are external with external consequences (this being the fundamental difference)



.... my personal relationship with God.

....And my relationship with God.

I understand.



Completely BASSACKWARDS! Your personal relationship with God is completely INTERNAL not external and there is no evidence of any external consequences of this internal relationship...To a materialist moral norms are totally external and deal with external consequences...yours are internal which is why as I said before so many serial killers, child molesters, mass murderers, and terrorists are found to be "true believers" the external consequences dont matter to them---if you do or do not lust after your neighbors 6 year old daughter means nothing if no one ever knows and it has no effect on your external behaviour...If you never swear in private or you do --same thing...no measurable difference means no moral question--you cannot measure if it is good or bad so it cannot be delegated moral or immoral...IF your personal relationship with God tells you it is ok to kidnap a 12 year old girl and rape her and subjugate her as Immanuel did in Utah..we materialists have a problem with that...and the world does...the process of moral thinking works best if it is completely grounded in the REAL world. Then we all have the same playbook and the same tools.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian

Scribble wrote:
I cannot think of any rules set in any manner for humanity that MUST BE FOLLOWED. Can you give me an example of the sort of thing you're talking about?

That is my point. Codes (rules) are made to be followed. Why make up a rule if you have not intention of following it.


Well, that wasn't your point. Your point was that what I described wasn't a moral because a moral MUST BE FOLLOWED. And I am saying -- which you seemed to miss -- there is NOTHING in the universe that fits your definition of morals, then, because neither you nor I can think of an example of a rule which MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Roger that?


Think about it. When you create rules (by default) you create the consequences of not following them. What is the use/purpose/application of rules that have no consequences if not followed?


There is none; I said that earlier. If there is no consequence to an action, then it is morally null. It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.


If I may be so bold (and excuse the personal question) can you tell me of a moral rule you broke recently and the consequence you suffered for it? I don’t want to put you on the spot here, it just for illustration only.


I can't think of any good example that I'd also be willing to share. If you feel like discussing these things in more concrete terms, feel free to create your own example.

[Loki]

Christian,

From my perspective this is not the case. To me, moral norms are external with external consequences (this being the fundamental difference)
Yes, but *you* don't know what the 'external morals' are - you have your own version, which you are refining using a process identical to mine. How do you know how 'close' or 'far' you are from getting it right?

I have a few questions :

Lets assume a person we'll call "ChristianA" has used reason, the bible, and his personal relationship with god to come to the conclusion that hitting a child under the age of 5 with a rod is a perfectly acceptable, morally correct, behaviour. So he does.

Now we consider "ChristianB", another person who has used reason, the bible, and his personal relationship with god to come to the conclusion that hitting a child under the age of 5 with a rod is a terrible, morally wrong, behaviour. So he doesn't.

Presumably, since you believe that morals are an absolute set by god, then god knows whether this behaviour is morally correct or not. Let's assume, for this example, that the correct answer is "hitting young children with a rod is morally wrong". Since you believe that 'punishment' for morally wrong behaviour is external, and delivered after this life ends, does this mean that god would punish 'ChristianA' for his behaviour? Would god punish him even though 'ChristianA' was acting in 'good faith', and firmly believed that he was engaging in morally correct behaviour?

Is it possible that 'ChristianA' is a good, faithful, spiritual man yet has reached a wrong conclusion on a moral issue? Or are 'true christians' unable to reach wrong moral conclusions?

[Christian]

Fun2Bfree wrote:
To a materialist moral norms are totally external and deal with external consequences...

Care to back this up with some evidence or examples?

Scribble wrote:
Well, that wasn't your point. Your point was that what I described wasn't a moral because a moral MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Our communication broke down somewhere. Let me try to fix what I meant.

Norms, moral, social, or legal, are created to be followed. When you set up a moral norm for yourself, you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. If not, why adopt it? This was (one of ) my point(s).

Now, social norms, you can decide to follow them or not, and to suffer the consequences of not following them.

And legal, well, here you MUST FOLLOW THEM. (we all must.)

And I am saying -- which you seemed to miss -- there is NOTHING in the universe that fits your definition of morals, then, because neither you nor I can think of an example of a rule which MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Moral norms, you are correct, there isn’t a single one you MUST FOLLOW. But my point is that you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. You seem to acknowledge that you don’t have to.

But I can think of countless example of norms you MUST FOLLOW.

If there is no consequence to an action, then it is morally null.

Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.

Not ridiculous at all.

I can't think of any good example that I'd also be willing to share. If you feel like discussing these things in more concrete terms, feel free to create your own example.

Because there isn’t one.


Loki wrote:
Yes, but *you* don't know what the 'external morals' are - you have your own version, which you are refining using a process identical to mine. How do you know how 'close' or 'far' you are from getting it right?

Consequences Loki, consequences. If you have constant thoughts of murdering someone, and you never do you believe there are no consequences to those thoughts. I believe there are.

I have a few questions :
Ok

Since you believe that 'punishment' for morally wrong behaviour is external, and delivered after this life ends, does this mean that god would punish 'ChristianA' for his behaviour?

I understand the model you are working with. Please try to understand the model I’m working with. They are different models.

I believe in causality.

If someone throws himself from the top of a 20 story building, and kills himself, would you say that nature punished him for throwing himself. You could see that way. But, we don’t. We see this as cause and effect.

So, I believe that when we break a moral rule, we suffer consequences just like violating a natural one. I believe legal rules are fallible in this regards (we all know this, not all crimes are punished) but moral rules have consequences 100% of the time. I believe this.

We don’t get condemned in the after life for our bad deeds here. (I understand this is the Catholic take on it) We pay here, what we do here.

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth. In your specific example, my daughter will give me much suffering later on in life. Now, if I’m right, then she will give me much satisfaction and joy.

Would god punish him even though 'ChristianA' was acting in 'good faith', and firmly believed that he was engaging in morally correct behaviour?

Do you see why from my framework I could not answer this question adequately.

Is it possible that 'ChristianA' is a good, faithful, spiritual man yet has reached a wrong conclusion on a moral issue?

Of course, and the consequences of his wrong conclusion will be felt by him.

Or are 'true christians' unable to reach wrong moral conclusions?

Of course not.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Christian
Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease. If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Originally posted by Christian
[/b]It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.
----------------------
Not ridiculous at all.[/b]

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Christian
Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease. If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Originally posted by Christian
It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.
----------------------
Not ridiculous at all.

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to double post.

[Loki]

Christian,

If you have constant thoughts of murdering someone, and you never do you believe there are no consequences to those thoughts. I believe there are.
So do I, just not the same process, and perhaps not the sorts of consequences. I believe that my current 'state of mind' depends heavily on my previous 'states of mind'. If I've spent a fair amount of time in the past thinking about murdering my wife, then I think the sort of decisions I will make in relation to a wide variety of choices will be affected in some way. Perhaps I'll be a little more likely to be cruel to a kitten occasionally. Perhaps I'll spend less on birthday presents for my wife. Perhaps I'll spend some time reading Internet sites that offer information on "how to poison a human". Perhaps I'll eventually murder my wife. In short, I'll be a lesser person. Consequences...

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth.
Okay - didn't realise that you wanted to extend the 'consequences' to this world, rather than storing them up until the next. Very Karmic of you - sure you're not a buddhist?? Even has overtones of Islamic moral structures - you sure you aren't worshipping the wrong god ? (how embarassing on judegement day if you were!!)

If you were never wrong about a moral issue, would you ever suffer here on earth?

Can I assume then that you think that :

(a) If your life is 100% full right now of happiness, then you must be performing 100% moral behaviours?
(b) If your life is less that 100% full of happiness, then you must be performing at least some immoral behaviours?

In other words , is your "happiness level" directly linked to your "morally level" ??

I believe in causality.
I'm not sure you do, but it may just be a terminology problem. You believe in "(libertarian) free will", which *cannot* be resolved with casuality. But this is probably another topic.

We don’t get condemned in the after life for our bad deeds here.
Why are we condemned at all then? What purpose does Comdemnation serve?

We pay here, what we do here.
Now this is *definitely* an entire thread on it's own!

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth. In your specific example, my daughter will give me much suffering later on in life.
I can (almost) guarantee this!
Now, if I’m right, then she will give me much satisfaction and joy.
And I can (almost) guarantee this!

Do you see why from my framework I could not answer this question adequately.
But you have answered the question - yes, god has constructed the universe in such a way that we pay a price for breaking unseen rules, even if we didn't know the rule was there, and still don't know what the rule is after being punished.

The legal equivalent would be :

You walk into a shop one morning to buy some bread. Two police approach you and announce you've been arrested. "What for?" you ask. "Can't tell you" say the police. They drag you before a judge, who pronounces you guilty. "Of what? Where's the evidence?" you ask. "Can't tell you the charge, and you don't need to see the evidence - we've already seen it and it's perfectly correct" says the judge. After spending two weeks in prison, the police drag you out of your cell, and take you back to the shop. "Now don't do it again!" they shout as they drive off. You sit down and try to figure out just what you did in the weeks leading up to entering the shop that could have lead to this situation. Little do you suspect that you have broken the infamous "No red socks to be worn before 10.00am" rule.

But perhaps you'll get it eventually...

Of course, and the consequences of his wrong conclusion will be felt by him.
And those around him?

[Christian]

Jet Grind wrote:
Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Oh, but a MA would say, this is not the case. (actually in the original thread on this topic, an MA did say that engaging in promiscuous sex is not immoral and carries no negative consequences) He said that all you need to do is practice safe sex.

If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Yes, this is the MA position. To believe there are no consequences to many actions.

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

And here the main difference, a Christian and a MA would not agree on what consequences come from such and such behavior. Many MA here argued that incest was not immoral or premarital sex was not immoral. I believe they are because there are consequences to these actions.

Loki wrote:
So do I, just not the same process, and perhaps not the sorts of consequences. I believe that my current 'state of mind' depends heavily on my previous 'states of mind'. If I've spent a fair amount of time in the past thinking about murdering my wife, then I think the sort of decisions I will make in relation to a wide variety of choices will be affected in some way. Perhaps I'll be a little more likely to be cruel to a kitten occasionally. Perhaps I'll spend less on birthday presents for my wife. Perhaps I'll spend some time reading Internet sites that offer information on "how to poison a human". Perhaps I'll eventually murder my wife. In short, I'll be a lesser person. Consequences...

I see the turn you have taken. Ok, suppose someone kills (manslaughter) another person and gets away with it. He was driving recklessly and ran over the victim. No one sees him do it, and he gets away with it.

He ponders about this event and from then on decides he will be a more careful driver. In the MA world, there are no consequences to this action. 10 years can go by, and since future events somewhat random (according to MAs) that isolated event will not have repercussions in the future. (unless, of course someone want to argue that remorse will take over the guy forever, which would contradict free will, right?)

So, in the MA world, there are no consequences to certain actions.

Let me ask you this, if you had thoughts of having sex with your neighbor’s wife constantly. Would that make you a lesser person? Is that immoral?

And can you also answer this? Straight out then, is it immoral to have thoughts of killing people?

Okay - didn't realise that you wanted to extend the 'consequences' to this world, rather than storing them up until the next. Very Karmic of you - sure you're not a buddhist?? Even has overtones of Islamic moral structures - you sure you aren't worshipping the wrong god ? (how embarassing on judegement day if you were!!)

This is why I excluded Buddhist from the original thread, because they believe in Karma. But, no, no Buddhism or Islam in this principle, here straight from the source:

Galatians 6:7 KJV
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

If you were never wrong about a moral issue, would you ever suffer here on earth?

If I were never wrong about a moral issue, I would never suffer the consequences of the said morals.

This is like saying, if I never violate the laws of gravity (meaning never falling down) I would never suffer a bruise or injury from falling down. But, who never falls down?

Can I assume then that you think that :

(a) If your life is 100% full right now of happiness, then you must be performing 100% moral behaviours?
(b) If your life is less that 100% full of happiness, then you must be performing at least some immoral behaviours?

In other words , is your "happiness level" directly linked to your "morally level" ??

Here, the daughter example has thrown us off about happiness and sadness.

Let’s see if we can fix it.

I can be 100% happy right now and not performing 100% moral behaviors. Happiness and sadness is a poor measure of results.

It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences. Following the rule will lead to the specified results. It is a very prescriptive process. Just like the laws of nature.

I'm not sure you do, but it may just be a terminology problem. You believe in "(libertarian) free will", which *cannot* be resolved with casuality. But this is probably another topic.

Say what? I believe in causality. Meaning, I believe in determinism, everything has a cause and a specific effect. I do not believe in physical randomness.

Why are we condemned at all then? What purpose does Comdemnation serve?

The exercise of your free will.

Now this is *definitely* an entire thread on it's own!

We do have topic to cover in 2004. jeje

I can (almost) guarantee this!

Very funny

And I can (almost) guarantee this!

Yes, yes, yes.

Seriously, what I meant is that if I’m right, she will become a wholesome, productive, well adjusted member of society and her life will be filled with abundance.

But you have answered the question - yes, god has constructed the universe in such a way that we pay a price for breaking unseen rules, even if we didn't know the rule was there, and still don't know what the rule is after being punished.

Funny you complain about this. Materialist have to learn to accept this fact. The universe is governed by physical laws. And yes, the first guy who ate a poisonous fruit died and people learned not to eat that kind.

Did gravity come with a manual? Yes, we must learn to brush our teeth, braking that unseen rule has dire consequences.

And MA have it worse, they live in a universe that is random, chaotic. Luck (meaning chance) plays a principal role in life. It’s just by pure chance that the we are not amongst the 30,000 dead in Iran or the 1000’s of dead in Iraq. It was the role of the dice. The famous flip of the coin it was.

And I don’t agree with your last part. We do come to understand the consequences of our actions. It is prescriptive.

The legal equivalent would be :

You walk into a shop one morning to buy some bread. Two police approach you and announce you've been arrested. "What for?" you ask. "Can't tell you" say the police. They drag you before a judge, who pronounces you guilty. "Of what? Where's the evidence?" you ask. "Can't tell you the charge, and you don't need to see the evidence - we've already seen it and it's perfectly correct" says the judge. After spending two weeks in prison, the police drag you out of your cell, and take you back to the shop. "Now don't do it again!" they shout as they drive off. You sit down and try to figure out just what you did in the weeks leading up to entering the shop that could have lead to this situation. Little do you suspect that you have broken the infamous "No red socks to be worn before 10.00am" rule.

But perhaps you'll get it eventually...

How did people learn to fly airplanes?

And those around him?

When applicable.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
No belief in God is need to have morals. My assertion is that morality should be irrelevant, useless if there is no God. You can have them, but they serve no purpose as a code of conduct.
This comment is where my attention hangs, you have a bit of a preconceived misunderstanding.

Rather than give you a series of arguments, I'll save you a great deal of effort:

Ask atheists if there is any use in morals.


My answer:

Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

[Loki]

Christian,

Ok, suppose someone kills (manslaughter) another person and gets away with it. He was driving recklessly and ran over the victim. No one sees him do it, and he gets away with it.

He ponders about this event and from then on decides he will be a more careful driver. In the MA world, there are no consequences to this action.
Agreed. There are no *direct* consequences of this action for the perpetrator - that's what "he got away with it" means I guess. I'd suggest there can be (and often would be) severe internal consequences - guilt, remose, etc. These may also lead to positive external influences in the long run.

But yes, there is no *guaranteed* negative outcome as far as I can see.

Let me ask you this, if you had thoughts of having sex with your neighbor’s wife constantly.
Have you seen my neighbor's wife? Nice woman, but ... this seems unlikely...
Would that make you a lesser person? Is that immoral?
Oh...you mean theorectically? Right...sorry...hmmm...(summoning up mental picture of nextdoor neighbor's wife being 18 year old scandinavian blonde)...if I did this constantly, then yes it would (most likely) lessen me. Probably an immoral behaviour ... but Heidi is just so sweet!!!!

And can you also answer this? Straight out then, is it immoral to have thoughts of killing people?
I assume by this you mean that I have decided to kill someone, but have not yet turned thought into action? The decision has been made, the intention exists, but the act is yet to happen? Good question!!! Are thoughts alone, without matching actions, immoral? Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" ? For now, I'm gonna go with the answer "a little bit immoral". On a scale of "Angel" to "Demon", it probably comes in at "used car salesman".

here straight from the source:
I hope you'll understand (but fear you won't) that adding scripture to your case weakens it? Since you agree that interpretation is required to understand the meaning of scripture, you can't use scripture to back up your interpretation. But let's not go there...

Happiness and sadness is a poor measure of results.
I was simplifying, but you appear unhappy with the simplification.

It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences.
This sounds like you are saying there is a clear and specific result for each and every immoral act. If so, can you give some examples? What is the "result" for adultery? For running someone over in your car while driving erratically, but not being seen?

Say what? I believe in causality.
...
The exercise of your free will.
You will need to provide definitions for the bolded terms before I can follow you here.

...what I meant is that if I’m right, she will become a wholesome, productive, well adjusted member of society and her life will be filled with abundance
Just to be clear, you aren't linking your daughter's *entire* future to the single behaviour "was spanked with a rod at required times when young" are you? You don't think perhaps the course of her life might be influenced by a few other (and perhaps more influential) things?

And I don’t agree with your last part. We do come to understand the consequences of our actions.
No argument from me - I'm not saying we can't learn from experience! I'm just wondering how you are able to link "moral action" and "physical consequence" with such amazing clarity.

Is disease/illness a consequence of immoral activity?

What immoral activity have 6 month old children with leukemia been indulging in?

Funny you complain about this. Materialist have to learn to accept this fact. The universe is governed by physical laws. And yes, the first guy who ate a poisonous fruit died and people learned not to eat that kind.

Did gravity come with a manual? Yes, we must learn to brush our teeth, braking that unseen rule has dire consequences.
I wasn't going to address this because it seems such an obvious strawman - but then I though if I left it alone you might feel like you'd made a strong point! I can't tell if you're just having a bit of fun here, or if you're serious. If you can't (or don't wish to) understand the difference between physical consequences of physical actions, and physical consequences of moral actions then I'm afraid the conversation is rather doomed.

But I'm prepared to be taught - can you give me a concrete example of a repeatable scenario where an immoral action *always* generates a physical consequence? To overturn the theory of gravity I need to produce *just one* example where it doesn't behave as expected. Is the same true for your theory of "moral consequences"? Do I just need to find one example of someone who has commited immoral act 'X' and not suffered consequence 'Y'?

And MA have it worse, they live in a universe that is random, chaotic.
(edited to add : The universe is "random" and "chaotic" from the perspective of human consciousness. Doesn't mean it's true nature is "chaotic")

News for you dude - you do to! You just need to believe that you can somehow weave a protective web around you and your family by being "virtuous and true". I hope your family is safe and well, but there are no guarantees - none, just probabilities. Such is life.

I believe moral behaviour helps stack the deck in my favor - immoral behaviour stacks the deck against me. But it's still just probabilites - some moral people suffer far more than is fair, and some immoral bastards escape unscathed. Play the odds...

[Fun2BFree]

Christian-

start with the notion that the way YOU have defined MA as you call us and our moral notions is wrong. And the way you have defined so called Christian morality is actually possible without any Christian belief whatsoever--that is to say it is entirely based on real material real world consequences..and evil thoughts that do not ever leave someone's head in any way shape or form are not measureable but you keep postulating bad consequences from thoughts and once they get expressed outside that person's head they have entered the world of the real the objective the materialist --in other words wht you have called Christian morality is in fact just exactly what a MA calls morality--things that can be demonstrated to have an undesired REAL WORLD effect are wrong--stuff that has desirable REAL WORLD effects are right...I have given you many examples..and they all derive from understanding the world in strictly materialist ways--physics/biochemistry/neurobiology, evolution, etc...no souls, no God no spirituality is necessary NOR is it helpful.

[Christian]

Yahweh wrote:
Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

Oh, are you saying poeple have imposed their morality on you and you must follow that said moral code?

One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

You know what, I have yet to meet a single atheist who does not consider himself good. I have yet to meet one that will admit to a single immoral act.

Loki wrote:
But yes, there is no *guaranteed* negative outcome as far as I can see.

And here a main difference in our world view (as with so many things)

Have you seen my neighbor's wife? Nice woman, but ... this seems unlikely...
:D

Oh...you mean theorectically? Right...sorry...hmmm...(summoning up mental picture of nextdoor neighbor's wife being 18 year old scandinavian blonde)...if I did this constantly, then yes it would (most likely) lessen me. Probably an immoral behaviour ...

Why would it?

assume by this you mean that I have decided to kill someone, but have not yet turned thought into action? The decision has been made, the intention exists, but the act is yet to happen? Good question!!! Are thoughts alone, without matching actions, immoral? Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" ? For now, I'm gonna go with the answer "a little bit immoral".

The slippery slope thing. Thing can be a little immoral. Would that be 10% immoral? At what % is it unacceptable?And who assigns the % of immorality?

Do you see what my point is. You are the judge and jury. And I submit that humans tend to acquit themselfs or at the very least be lenient on themselves.

I hope you'll understand (but fear you won't) that adding scripture to your case weakens it? Since you agree that interpretation is required to understand the meaning of scripture, you can't use scripture to back up your interpretation. But let's not go there...

I did not present the Bible verse to support my case. I understand it is irrelevant in your opinion. I presented it, because you suggested I might be getting my worldview from other sources. I showed you the Bible holds this concept.

This sounds like you are saying there is a clear and specific result for each and every immoral act.

Yes, correct.

What is the "result" for adultery? For running someone over in your car while driving erratically, but not being seen?

For adultery is severe problems in your marriage. For running over someone, I don't know. Has never happened to me.

You will need to provide definitions for the bolded terms before I can follow you here.

causality= The relationship between cause and effect
free will= The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.

Just to be clear, you aren't linking your daughter's *entire* future to the single behaviour "was spanked with a rod at required times when young" are you? You don't think perhaps the course of her life might be influenced by a few other (and perhaps more influential) things?

You chose the specific example. Of course not. The way the Bible teachs to education children encompasses much more than that. As a said many times, corporal punishment is just one of many tools to educate. And the underlying principle is that children must learn consequences, you see.

No argument from me - I'm not saying we can't learn from experience! I'm just wondering how you are able to link "moral action" and "physical consequence" with such amazing clarity.

Because, you see, for me, a personal relationship with God is not just empty words. I see causality in my life. I can equality moral choices with physical consequences in my lifel. All the evidence I have is anecdotal, from others and from me.

Is disease/illness a consequence of immoral activity?

It can be, yes. Of course Loki it cannot be too.

What immoral activity have 6 month old children with leukemia been indulging in?

None.

If you can't (or don't wish to) understand the difference between physical consequences of physical actions, and physical consequences of moral actions then I'm afraid the conversation is rather doomed.

We already take for granted that you do not believe in anything supernatural. I do Loki. Moral actions have physical consequences.

But I'm prepared to be taught - can you give me a concrete example of a repeatable scenario where an immoral action *always* generates a physical consequence?

This would presuppose that this *field* has advanced in knowledge as much as physics. I can only speak for myself in terms of evidence.

To overturn the theory of gravity I need to produce *just one* example where it doesn't behave as expected. Is the same true for your theory of "moral consequences"?

Yes, the problem is that evidence is much harder to evaluate. People lie, (what I mean is that, they will know their moral choices had negative consequences but wont admit it)

Do I just need to find one example of someone who has commited immoral act 'X' and not suffered consequence 'Y'?

Can you give me the methodology that will go past people lying?

News for you dude - you do to! You just need to believe that you can somehow weave a protective web around you and your family by being "virtuous and true". I hope your family is safe and well, but there are no guarantees - none, just probabilities. Such is life.

But you see, I stake my life in such belief. And I assure, I'm well ahead for it.

I believe moral behaviour helps stack the deck in my favor - immoral behaviour stacks the deck against me. But it's still just probabilites - some moral people suffer far more than is fair, and some immoral bastards escape unscathed. Play the odds...

On the contrary, I believe that if there is no God, immoral behavior stacks the deck well in favor of you. Most crimes go unpunished by the human hand. Most people get away with illicit behavior from human laws.

Fun2beFree wrote:
start with the notion that the way YOU have defined MA as you call us and our moral notions is wrong. And the way you have defined so called Christian morality is actually possible without any Christian belief whatsoever--that is to say it is entirely based on real material real world consequences..and evil thoughts that do not ever leave someone's head in any way shape or form are not measureable but you keep postulating bad consequences from thoughts and once they get expressed outside that person's head they have entered the world of the real the objective the materialist --in other words wht you have called Christian morality is in fact just exactly what a MA calls morality--things that can be demonstrated to have an undesired REAL WORLD effect are wrong--stuff that has desirable REAL WORLD effects are right...I have given you many examples..and they all derive from understanding the world in strictly materialist ways--physics/biochemistry/neurobiology, evolution, etc...no souls, no God no spirituality is necessary NOR is it helpful.

Just what I thought, you can't come out with one example.

[daenku32]

Clearly your definition of Morality differs from regular understanding of most people, especially those that are Atheists. And considering your original claim was directed at them, you should certainly reword your statement.

If I accept your definition for 'Morality' and answer that you are correct in your claim, that answer can and will be misinterpreted by others.

Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

[Christian]

daenku32 wrote:
Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

That parallel closely? What does that mean? Are social and legal norms indistinguishible from moral norms?

What distinction do you make between them? How do you know the difference between a moral norm and a social norm or legal for that matter?

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Christian
daenku32 wrote:
Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

That parallel closely? What does that mean? Are social and legal norms indistinguishible from moral norms?

What distinction do you make between them? How do you know the difference between a moral norm and a social norm or legal for that matter?

Your definition of 'morals' seems to mean that you believe in them so that God doesn't smite you or something similiar. Most people include the desire to follow laws and social conducts (not necessarily all, but definately at least a couple) into this definition. They equate being 'immoral' or without morals to being lawless and without any respect to social norms. You are using a socially broad term to describe a very narrow definiton.

Edit: Here is my correction to your claim:
"Smiting of God or anything supernatural should be irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist."

With that, I can agree.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian
Scribble wrote:
Well, that wasn't your point. Your point was that what I described wasn't a moral because a moral MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Our communication broke down somewhere. Let me try to fix what I meant.

Norms, moral, social, or legal, are created to be followed. When you set up a moral norm for yourself, you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. If not, why adopt it? This was (one of ) my point(s).


In my worldview, I've always got an opiton. There are no MUSTs. I don't know what kind of thing you're imagining that MUST be done. I cannot think of anything.


Now, social norms, you can decide to follow them or not, and to suffer the consequences of not following them.

And legal, well, here you MUST FOLLOW THEM. (we all must.)


Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?


And I am saying -- which you seemed to miss -- there is NOTHING in the universe that fits your definition of morals, then, because neither you nor I can think of an example of a rule which MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Moral norms, you are correct, there isn’t a single one you MUST FOLLOW. But my point is that you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. You seem to acknowledge that you don’t have to.

But I can think of countless example of norms you MUST FOLLOW.


Name one.


If there is no consequence to an action, then it is morally null.

Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.


I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm. It can't be a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule). What exactly CAN it be?



I can't think of any good example that I'd also be willing to share. If you feel like discussing these things in more concrete terms, feel free to create your own example.

Because there isn’t one.


I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

[Christian]

scribble wrote:
In my worldview, I've always got an opiton. There are no MUSTs. I don't know what kind of thing you're imagining that MUST be done. I cannot think of anything.

Yes, I understand this. That why I said you should call them preferences, inclinations, not norms.

Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?

Ahh, because the State (legal norms) are the only legitimate power on earth who can make you do or not do against your will if necessary. This is a truly unique quality of legal norms. It's what sets it apart from any other norm system.

Let me give you an example. I don't know your proffesion or what you do for a living, but regardless, you can be sued civilly (by a plaintiff in a civil court) and if you lose (including all possible appeals) YOU MUST obey the Court. If you don't obey, the State can make you obey. They can use force to make you obey.

Name one.

How about 10?

1. You must be checked at the security check points in an airport (if you want to board a plane.)
2. You must file a tax return
3. You must appear in court if a warrant is issued against you.
4. You must follow zoning laws.
5. You must pay at toll booths
6. You must wear clothes in public places
7. You must not make loud noises (loud music) at night in your house in a residential neigborhood.
8. You must not smoke inside buildings.
9. You must not shout FIRE inside a movie theater.
10. You must not carry firearms inside an airplane.

I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm. It can't be a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule). What exactly CAN it be?

Wait, you got all this next quote right:

Scribble's
I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm.

This next part, is what MA call moral rules:
Scribble's
...a rule I have the option of not following

And you are wrong about this next part:
Scribble's
...a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule)

You don't have the option of wearing or not wearing cloths in public.

I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
Yahweh wrote:
Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

Oh, are you saying poeple have imposed their morality on you and you must follow that said moral code?
No, I'm not saying that at all. I answered what I thought was a concern of yours.

Note: Morality is not an absolute set of laws which governs peoples lives.


One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

You know what, I have yet to meet a single atheist who does not consider himself good. I have yet to meet one that will admit to a single immoral act.
Yep, most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] have a tendency to consider themselves to be good people.

Most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] would have a hard time trying to say they have never committed an immoral act while being honest at the same time.

If you put an atheist or other person on the spot and asked them "What are some immoral things you've done", it might create a bit of confusion. People have a habit of assuming "immoral" is equivelant to "absolute evil".

Its also helpful to know about a little thing called Moral Relativism. Quick description: There is rarely a such thing as absolute morality that can be applied equally and universally across humanity. And with Moral Relativism, keep you sociology in mind: While some person's morals might differ from another's morals (such as instances involving the Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life crowd), for the most part people have a tendency to think alike (such as the fact very few people would consider torturing children for sport morally acceptable).

Again, your concern that atheists wouldnt admit to immoral acts is a bit premature. Either you just arent asking, or you just arent listening, I find it hard to believe that not a single atheist you have met would admit to even a smidgen of immoral behavior. If you still have concerns, start a thread called "Confess your sins" or something, then plenty of the atheists and materialists on the board will answer accordingly.

To answer your concern:

My Immoral behavior: Lots. One of the things I try to work on is not letting my ego become overinflated. And I occasionally busy my time poking fun at others behind their backs for a good laugh (thats a bit euphemistic, but it gets the point across). I've done lots of other bad stuff, but it wouldnt be in my best interests to detail it.

[scribble]

Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Originally posted by Christian
Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?

Ahh, because the State (legal norms) are the only legitimate power on earth who can make you do or not do against your will if necessary. This is a truly unique quality of legal norms. It's what sets it apart from any other norm system.



You are deluded. The law and legal system cannot force me to do anything.


Let me give you an example. I don't know your proffesion or what you do for a living, but regardless, you can be sued civilly (by a plaintiff in a civil court) and if you lose (including all possible appeals) YOU MUST obey the Court. If you don't obey, the State can make you obey. They can use force to make you obey.


Then let me give you an example. The legal system ruled that I was no longer allowed to drive when I was 23. This in no way changed my ability to drive, and in fact I continued to do so.


Name one.

How about 10?

1. You must be checked at the security check points in an airport (if you want to board a plane.)


Nonsense. Even POST 9-11, people are able to sidestep the security precautions. We have seen it on the news. In many airports, it's even possible to board a plane by running through the security checkpoint and boarding the plane before the guards have caught up to you. I read just such an account recently.


2. You must file a tax return


Nonsense. There are years when I have not done so.


3. You must appear in court if a warrant is issued against you.


Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.


4. You must follow zoning laws.


Nonsense; you read every day of zoning violations.


5. You must pay at toll booths


Nonsense. MAny people avoid paying at tollbooths.


6. You must wear clothes in public places


Nonsense. Streaking is a time-honored tradition. Not to mention nudist camps, and countries where people are less prudish than here in the states.


7. You must not make loud noises (loud music) at night in your house in a residential neigborhood.


Nonsense. I do this often.


8. You must not smoke inside buildings.


Yet I'm smoking right now. And I'll be damned if I'm going outside to do it; it's like 10 below!


9. You must not shout FIRE inside a movie theater.


I've done that, too. You've got an awful lax definition of MUST.


10. You must not carry firearms inside an airplane.


Yet many do. Odd...


Wait, you got all this next quote right:
This next part, is what MA call moral rules:
And you are wrong about this next part:


If you still think I don't get it by the end of this post, then let me know.


You don't have the option of wearing or not wearing cloths in public.


Just to TRULY prove you wrong, I've just put in a 10-second appearance on my balcony in nothing but my skin. And my earlier description of the temperature as ten below may have been generous.


I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.


If this is TRULY the kind of rule you mean, then you've trumped me. I think that holding to a rule like this is total and utter ridiculousness. If this is really what a moral rule has to be, then I'm glad to be free of morals.


Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.


There are situations in which this can have real consequences. And I don't mean slippery slope.


Don't commit adultery


There are situations in which this can have real consequences.


Don't fornicate, etc


I'm honestly not clear on the definition of that term. If you mean sex without marriage, there's definately situations in which that's a choice with a real world consequence.


Don't get drunk ever (just once)


If I wanted to be super pedantic, I'd say this is also an action with real world consequences. But instead I'll go back to my response to your first example; if this is really your idea of a moral rule, I'll enjoy being moral-free.


None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.


Untrue.


No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless.

Yes, while I disagree with your examples, I finally understand what you're saying. By your definition of morals, I have absolutely no need for them.

I do, however, think your definition is without merit and contrived mainly in order to put forth your argument.

-- Which it does perfectly. You're right; I have no morals. By your definition of morals, I don't ever want them, and I'm quite proud to have none.

They are inherently ridiculous, as I've said from my first post: if an action has absolutely no repercussions, then there's no reason to worry about doing it or not.

[Loki]

Christian,

It's a fine sunny day, and the kids want to head to the park to ride their bikes ... only time for a few quick comments.

Yes, the problem is that evidence is much harder to evaluate. People lie, (what I mean is that, they will know their moral choices had negative consequences but wont admit it)
...
Can you give me the methodology that will go past people lying?
Can you give me the methodology that will enable me to measure/detect/define the consequence for "stealing a pen from work"?

You chose the specific example. Of course not. The way the Bible teachs to education children encompasses much more than that. As a said many times, corporal punishment is just one of many tools to educate.
So if there are many tools involved, how do we separate the influence/impact of each tool on the overall result? Would you concede that perhaps striking a child is immoral? There certainly seems to be a pool of (anecdotal!) evidence to suggest that successful/well adjusted human adults are possible from a background that excludes corporeal punishment?

And the underlying principle is that children must learn consequences, you see.
Totally agree ... just not sure how *you* can be sure that coporeal punishment is valid and moral. Your argument rests on "it's moral/valid if the result/outcome is positive. It's wrong/immoral if the outcome is negative". If you strike your daughter at age 4, and have to wait until age 18 to see the result, and you admit there are many other 'tools' along the way, then how can you know? Isn't it possible that striking your daughter is wrong, but if done only a few times it has no real lasting effect, and that the happy/sad 18 year old you end up with has nothing to do with being struck at age 4? Despite your belief that it is *necessary* to strike (at appropriate times), and that failure to do so (ie, not striking, or striking too often) will have clear adverse effects, I can't see how you can possibly have measured this. But you admit your evidence is 'personal anecdotes' and 'stripture says so'. so I guess there's nothing more to be said here...

For adultery is severe problems in your marriage.
Chicken and egg, Christian - which came first. Do you commit adultery because there are problems in your marriage, or do you get problems in your marriage because you commit adultery?

I know of at least 7 people who have commited adultery - 5 are now divorced. *All* of them had severe marital problems prior to commiting adultery. At least 2 (I haven't actually asked all of them!) have said that the adultery was a consequence of the problems, not a cause. I'd have thought it's quite likely that in most cases the sequence is (a) marital issues, (b) adultery, (c) divorce.

For running over someone, I don't know.
I've admited that I can't see any guaranteed penalty for this scenario. You agree you cannot define a penalty either - you just believe there will be some sort of (clearly proscribed, but as yet unknown) penalty.

It can be, yes. Of course Loki it cannot be too
So the consequences of an immoral act like "lying to your wife about how attractive the neighbor's wife is" might a toothache? But not all toothaches are the result of lying to the wife?

Can you list *any* immoral acts for which you have discovered an illness/disease consequence (I'm curious to see what they might be)?

On the contrary, I believe that if there is no God, immoral behavior stacks the deck well in favor of you. Most crimes go unpunished by the human hand. Most people get away with illicit behavior from human laws.
Perhaps this is the core of the issue - if you asked me to raise my son in such a way that he as totally immoral (perhaps amoral would be more correct?), I probably could. In other words, he cared *only* for himself, and paid not regard to anyone else, including me. I guess that's possible - there may be some genetic issues (some behaviours are "hard wired" into humans) that can't be undone, but let's assume for the moment that it *is* possible to raise a child to be 100% self-absorbed. I'd agree that for such a person, immoral behaviour probably results in advantages for them - since many immoral acts involve personal advantage at another's loss (that's almost a definition of immoral!).

But the point, Christian, is that I am not such a person, and neither is my son. If human society is to prosper/survive it needs to raise moral citizens - so we teach this to our children. If I am raised a moral citizen, then moral behaviour *is* in my best interests. The presence/absense of a god does not change this.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Christian ....

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless. [/B]

Moral rules without external consequences are often called Phobias.

Are Phobias the inherent part of your definiton of Morals? Frankly, I don't consider lack of phobias as negative to my character.

[Fun2BFree]

Christian --it should be apparent that given enough time you would hang yourself with your own hypocrisy:

by Christian:
It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences. Following the rule will lead to the specified results. It is a very prescriptive process. Just like the laws of nature.



then Christian wrote:
There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences


let us look again at these two Chrisitan quotes:
No moral rule has external consequences

Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences


Which is it? Moral rules do or do not have consequences? And by consequences you have earlier agreed to stay in the REAL observable world. You claim I have no examples yet you have been given many--anything killing people- stealing, lying all of these are immoral in circumstances when they lead to more unhappiness and destruction---it all depends on the consequences--it all has to do with the goal..the end result the consequences..that is a Materialist viewpoint not a spiritual one...

If you think impure thoughts what is the consequence? If you say that it will eventually lead to some EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCE SOME ACTION which we agree is bad (leads to failure of our species to carry on in happiness and comfort) then the BAD MORALITY is in that action--not in the impure thoughts--UNLESS IMPURE thoughts routinely are part of the process that ends in external consequences...Rain can lead to floods which can kill off huge numbers of people and shatter lives and communities...but RAIN is not bad. Floods are bad. Immoral behaviour is the same..you have to look at it as I said with my example of water...what is the right temperature for water? What is the RIGHT behaviour for a given situation? What IS the consequence in both situations is exactly the laws of NATURE that will determine -since human nature is so complex it is not so simplistic as I spank kids, my kids turn out OK as I determine therefore spanking is good...that would not qualify for a kindergarten science experiment --it is foolish magical thinking that the laws of nature would be so easily discernible to an individual...we are lousy judges of what is going on as you yourself said..we tend to go too easy on ourselves (as you have in believing your terrible hypocritical self-contradicting statements)--so external, independently verifiable results/consequences--they are VITAL and can only be understood in a MATERIALIST way--not spiritual...
So examples of immoral behaviour---stealing -even if you are not caught--because the very fabric of our society it's stability is founded on property rights and security...disturbing that fabric will lead to our downfall--it is measureable, believable, material...not spiritual....Cheating on wife- if it leads to our downfall it is immoral--I think it is debateable if it leads to enough damage in this real world to call it immoral--which is why they stopped making it illegal--it just is not that big of deal to a lot of people..not big enough to worry about. It is between two or three people not the whole of society to worry about. It is consequences that effect society's survival that are moral questions. God has NOTHING to do with it--though the dudes who made him up go a few things right (killing is bad) and a lot wrong (eating shrimp and pork is really not bad)--how is it we know that one rule is good and the other is pretty silly for most of us who ignore Kosher laws???Oh yeah, that handy dandy tool that is strictly gounded in the Material world--REASON!

[Christian]

Guys, a lot of stuff to address, I will get to it later today. Hang on.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

My assertion is that morality should be irrelevant, useless if there is no God. You can have them, but they serve no purpose as a code of conduct.

I'll assert that morality should be irrelevant to a Christian as well.

The central premise of Christianity is that all men are sinners, and that it is not possible to achieve salvation as the result of adherence -- no matter how rigorous -- to any code of moral conduct. The sins are washed away by the blood of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus (a trick which works for any offense except that of blasphemy against the holy spirit). Wherever the faithful gather, the light of this gospel shines down upon a sea of nodding heads.

Yet the vast majority of the recipients of this good news then proceed to turn right back to the old system of Judaistic legalism that the coming of Jesus was supposed to have overturned. This is what is most conducive to maintaining the integrity of the church as a political institution; positions of power exist because of rules.

[Christian]

Yahweh wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I answered what I thought was a concern of yours.

Note: Morality is not an absolute set of laws which governs peoples lives.

Then, I’m not clear on how people are kept on line and it being a social tool. As I understand it, this social tool would require that people adhere to it.

Yep, most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] have a tendency to consider themselves to be good people.

Most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] would have a hard time trying to say they have never committed an immoral act while being honest at the same time.

If you put an atheist or other person on the spot and asked them "What are some immoral things you've done", it might create a bit of confusion. People have a habit of assuming "immoral" is equivelant to "absolute evil".

I agree.

Its also helpful to know about a little thing called Moral Relativism. Quick description: There is rarely a such thing as absolute morality that can be applied equally and universally across humanity. And with Moral Relativism, keep you sociology in mind: While some person's morals might differ from another's morals (such as instances involving the Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life crowd), for the most part people have a tendency to think alike (such as the fact very few people would consider torturing children for sport morally acceptable).

If you pay attention to the thread you will find this has been covered and who believes in MR and who does not.

Again, your concern that atheists wouldnt admit to immoral acts is a bit premature.

It is not a concern, it is a fact I have presented to you (as I know it from more than two years of posting in this forum)

Either you just arent asking, or you just arent listening, I find it hard to believe that not a single atheist you have met would admit to even a smidgen of immoral behavior.

You can search all my exchanges on this topic.

If you still have concerns, start a thread called "Confess your sins" or something, then plenty of the atheists and materialists on the board will answer accordingly.

Not a bad idea.

My Immoral behavior: Lots. One of the things I try to work on is not letting my ego become overinflated. And I occasionally busy my time poking fun at others behind their backs for a good laugh (thats a bit euphemistic, but it gets the point across). I've done lots of other bad stuff, but it wouldnt be in my best interests to detail it.

So, at least we are getting somewhere, finally, two examples from an atheist (are you a materialist as well?) of immoral behavior.

I hope you can clearly see that these behaviors might not be considered immoral to most MA.

Scribble wrote:
Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Let me say the same.

I can only conclude that you being intellectually dishonest in your responses to me on this specific thread.

I would be very easy to call your bluff and prove to you that you are indeed being intellectually dishonest.

I’m not going to comment on your responses with the exception of one (I can’t resist) because indeed, most present a ridiculous position

Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.

Really. This means that you are fugitive of the law for more than one legal offense. And maybe a legal definition of warrant is warranted (pun intended)

warrant
an order (writ) of a court which directs a law enforcement officer (usually a sheriff) to arrest and bring a person before the judge, such as a person who is charged with a crime, convicted of a crime but failed to appear for sentencing, owes a fine or is in contempt of court.

As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.

Loki wrote:
Can you give me the methodology that will enable me to measure/detect/define the consequence for "stealing a pen from work"?

From my own personal experience, stealing (in general) brings back the consequence of experiencing poorness (is that a word, [having a hard time translating in my mind from Spanish] *escasez*)

So if there are many tools involved, how do we separate the influence/impact of each tool on the overall result?

Because I can see short term, medium term and long term results from a particular tool. And please, I do understand the concept of isolating variables.

Would you concede that perhaps striking a child is immoral?

Yes, of course.

There certainly seems to be a pool of (anecdotal!) evidence to suggest that successful/well adjusted human adults are possible from a background that excludes corporeal punishment?

Absolutely, many children don’t need to be punished this way. Some do.

Totally agree ... just not sure how *you* can be sure that coporeal punishment is valid and moral. Your argument rests on "it's moral/valid if the result/outcome is positive. It's wrong/immoral if the outcome is negative".

Yes, correct.
If you strike your daughter at age 4, and have to wait until age 18 to see the result, and you admit there are many other 'tools' along the way, then how can you know?

But your premise is wrong here. I don’t have to wait till she is 18 to see results. As with any project or goal, there are short, medium and long term results.

I’ll give you an example. My Dad caught me smoking when I was about 7. He told me that if I really wanted to smoke, I would have my chance right there to smoke all I wanted and proceeded to buy a whole box of cigarettes. After, maybe, half the second pack, I was completely disgusted and nauseas. But he forced me to continue. I didn’t finish the box, but I never touched a cigarette in my life ever again. The tool worked.

Isn't it possible that striking your daughter is wrong, but if done only a few times it has no real lasting effect, and that the happy/sad 18 year old you end up with has nothing to do with being struck at age 4?

Well, I have seen the effect of spanking my daughter, the behavior has been corrected and proven to be very effective. (yes, of course, many will argue that other method are as effective or more so, but I can vouch for my results)

Despite your belief that it is *necessary* to strike (at appropriate times), and that failure to do so (ie, not striking, or striking too often) will have clear adverse effects, I can't see how you can possibly have measured this.

By the results.

But you admit your evidence is 'personal anecdotes' and 'stripture says so'. so I guess there's nothing more to be said here...

Ok.

Chicken and egg, Christian - which came first. Do you commit adultery because there are problems in your marriage, or do you get problems in your marriage because you commit adultery?

Ahh, but you see, committing adultery begins in the mind. There are consequences to this mental stray. I clearly say that the egg is adultery.

know of at least 7 people who have commited adultery - 5 are now divorced. *All* of them had severe marital problems prior to commiting adultery. At least 2 (I haven't actually asked all of them!) have said that the adultery was a consequence of the problems, not a cause. I'd have thought it's quite likely that in most cases the sequence is (a) marital issues, (b) adultery, (c) divorce.

No, Loki, (and please note why I believe the Bible is so consistent in its teachings.) The sequence is like this:

(a) mental adultery (b) marital issues, (c) execution of the mental plan to adultery (d) physical adultery, (e) divorce or other major problems.

I've admited that I can't see any guaranteed penalty for this scenario. You agree you cannot define a penalty either - you just believe there will be some sort of (clearly proscribed, but as yet unknown) penalty.

Correct.

So the consequences of an immoral act like "lying to your wife about how attractive the neighbor's wife is" might a toothache? But not all toothaches are the result of lying to the wife?

Correct, poor dental hygiene could be the culprit. (and you say I don’t have a sense of humor.)

Can you list *any* immoral acts for which you have discovered an illness/disease consequence (I'm curious to see what they might be)?

I can give my personal experience. But it would have to be a PM.

Perhaps this is the core of the issue - if you asked me to raise my son in such a way that he as totally immoral (perhaps amoral would be more correct?), I probably could.

Yes, amoral, I agree with the term. But this is not what I’m suggesting you do if MA is the correct reality.

But the point, Christian, is that I am not such a person, and neither is my son. If human society is to prosper/survive it needs to raise moral citizens - so we teach this to our children. If I am raised a moral citizen, then moral behaviour *is* in my best interests. The presence/absense of a god does not change this.

I hope you can see by scribble’s responses that it is not in your best interest to stay ONLY at the moral level. Would you have liked to be in the movie theater where scribble shouted FIRE? Or, would you like to be his next door neighbor, when he cranks up the volume and your daughter is trying to sleep?

No, I’m not criticizing or stating that MA are immoral or amoral. I’m saying that if follows logically that if MA is reality, then, it is in your best interest to create, support and adhere to standards of behavior that can be enforced externally. And leave this delusional that morality (an internal system of rules) is a good thing.

If you wont be accountable to a god, (because you are sure there is none) you should be accountable to someone or something (an entity) for 100% of your behavior. Now, that will assure you a better society.

daenku32 wrote:
Moral rules without external consequences are often called Phobias.

Are Phobias the inherent part of your definiton of Morals? Frankly, I don't consider lack of phobias as negative to my character.

You can call my moral rules phobias. If you don’t present at least one example of your moral rules, then I wont know why you make this distinction.


Fun2Bfree wrote:
Christian --it should be apparent that given enough time you would hang yourself with your own hypocrisy:

Oh, I see, waiting for me to make a mistake. Don’t need too long for that.


Which is it? Moral rules do or do not have consequences?

Do you know what PERSPECTIVE means? Please read the thread as many times as necessary to see that I’m not contradicting myself. If you have poor reading skills in this specific thread, that’s not for me to correct.

You claim I have no examples yet you have been given many--anything killing people- stealing, lying all of these are immoral in circumstances when they lead to more unhappiness and destruction---it all depends on the consequences--it all has to do with the goal..the end result the consequences..that is a Materialist viewpoint not a spiritual one...

Killing and stealing are illegal. Now, lying, that is a good example that can be a moral rule without being a social or legal rule.

Lying does not always lead to more unhappiness (from the MA perspective). On the contrary, lying can bring lots of joy. If I were a MA, I can thing of many situations where lying brings absolutely no negative external consequences.

If you think impure thoughts what is the consequence? If you say that it will eventually lead to some EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCE SOME ACTION which we agree is bad (leads to failure of our species to carry on in happiness and comfort) then the BAD MORALITY is in that action--not in the impure thoughts--UNLESS IMPURE thoughts routinely are part of the process that ends in external consequences...

I understand the MA perspective. Thoughts do not bring negative consequences. This is your view, I understand that. Now, please understand that that is not the Christian perspective. Impure thoughts bring negative external consequences to me.

Dymanic wrote:
I'll assert that morality should be irrelevant to a Christian as well.

Assert away.

The central premise of Christianity is that all men are sinners, and that it is not possible to achieve salvation as the result of adherence -- no matter how rigorous -- to any code of moral conduct. The sins are washed away by the blood of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus

I agree with this, you have it correct. (the position, the belief, I mean.)

If you are implying that because this is true, we don’t have to be moral, then you are incorrect. The main reason is that even if we have a ticket to heaven, we cannot escape the consequences of our actions. A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action.
That seems to beg more explanation. What sort of consequences are we talking about?

It seems to me that being 'saved' is a binary property. You're either on the bus, or you're off the bus. But not being (or being) an adulterer is not what gets you on (or off) the bus. Are you saying that the Christian adulterer faces consequences in heaven -- in addition to the earthly consequences both he and the atheist adulterer face?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian
Scribble wrote:
Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Let me say the same.

I can only conclude that you being intellectually dishonest in your responses to me on this specific thread.

I would be very easy to call your bluff and prove to you that you are indeed being intellectually dishonest.


Call it as you like. I'vew been completely honest. You are the one with the useless definiton of moral and the indecipherable definiton of MUST.

You're also the one who has decided not to respond to most of my last message. Even though I found your position ridiculous, I didn't ignore it. You are ignoring me because you have backed yourself into a corner: your ridiculous words are still drying and you can't step over them without getting yourself covered in wet ridicule.




I’m not going to comment on your responses with the exception of one (I can’t resist) because indeed, most present a ridiculous position

Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.

Really. This means that you are fugitive of the law for more than one legal offense. And maybe a legal definition of warrant is warranted (pun intended)


Do you find it so unbelievable that someone on this board might have been a 'fugitive from the law?' Do you find it so hard to believe that people sometimes avoid serving their warrants?

You are completely detached from reality. Enjoy your fantasies.




As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.


Well, I'm waiting.


I hope you can see by scribble’s responses that it is not in your best interest to stay ONLY at the moral level. Would you have liked to be in the movie theater where scribble shouted FIRE? Or, would you like to be his next door neighbor, when he cranks up the volume and your daughter is trying to sleep?


I arrived at my showing of Six Days and Seven Nights (an awful, horrible movie) a bit early and got a moment to say hello to THE ONLY OTHER COUPLE IN THE THEATRE. It was quite simple from that point to continue on to making fun of the movie with them (when we all realized how horrible hte movie was). Yelling FIRE was the least of the things shouted in that theatre.

My next door neighbor would ocassionally call the cops at my old apartment. I was always profoundly apologetic - and I really did feel bad. But that's not my point at all. My point was you said I MUST NOT play loud music at night. Well, you're wrong. I can and did.

Would you like to try using words that mean what you say instead of inferring necessity in supererogatory actions?


Lying does not always lead to more unhappiness (from the MA perspective). On the contrary, lying can bring lots of joy. If I were a MA, I can thing of many situations where lying brings absolutely no negative external consequences.


You're wrong. Lying is ALWYS bad, even if it's a "little white lie" - because it's not my place to dictate a false reality to another person. That would have the real world effect of causing them to be delusional - or angry at me if they saw through the lie.

Amazing how none of the moral rules you brought up fits your own definiton of having no consequences...

[Loki]

Christian,

Well, I have seen the effect of spanking my daughter, the behavior has been corrected and proven to be very effective.
But what else have you (perhaps) also achieved Christian? What other result might lurk behind the apparent short term gain? Perhaps your daughter has been taught that it's *sometimes* okay for a man to strike a woman. Perhaps the true lesson (the long term result) you've implanted is yet to show it's face?

You claim short, medium and long tern results for your actions - then claim that the actions are effective because the short term results are obvious. Perhaps the truth lies deeper?

Because I can see short term, medium term and long term results from a particular tool. And please, I do understand the concept of isolating variables.
How do you measure the long term results? How do you isolate the variables to achieve this long term meaurement?

I didn’t finish the box, but I never touched a cigarette in my life ever again. The tool worked.
Well, you've never touched a cigarette *so far*!! But even if it turns out that you spend your entire life a non-smoker (me too) perhaps this action of your father's leads (indirectly) to a drinking problem? Again, how do you measure and isolate the long term effects?

Ahh, but you see, committing adultery begins in the mind. There are consequences to this mental stray. I clearly say that the egg is adultery.
Well, we're just going to have to trade off assertions here, because I can see no way to prove my point (or disprove yours). I can assure you with as much sincerity as I can muster that the 2 cases I was referring too *absolutely cannot* be a case of 'mental adultery' leading to marital problems, leading to physical adultery. I'm not prepared to go into details on a public forum (and no, it's not my personal details!), but I was a close friend of a couple that went through such issues, and it was the woman who finally commited adultery - but the marriage problems went back years before. The seeds of that marriages' collapse were nothing to do with adultery - that was simply the final step in a long decay. In fact, within weeks of the adultery occuring, the marriage was over, and now 18 months later both parties are significantly happier - the woman in particular is finally out of a (verbally) abusive marriage, and has a child with a new man. They seem the picture of happiness. The adulterer (the woman) seems to have completely turned her life around, and is happier than at anytime that I've known her. She often makes comments along the lines of "the weight is gone" and "I feel so free" and "I can't believe that I used to live like that".

I'm sure you believe that the "negative result" of her adultery lies before her, and I guess if 10 years from now something has gone wrong in her life you'll claim it as proof that you were right. Basically, you can't lose, right? Even if the short term result here from the adultery appears to be a significant upgrade in the quality of both people's lives, you'll still claim any future pain as being the medium or long tern result?

The short term pain in that situation was carried by the man (the victim of the adultery). The marriage lasted about 4 days after the adultery occured. How do I read the short term result here????

I’m saying that if follows logically that if MA is reality, then, it is in your best interest to create, support and adhere to standards of behavior that can be enforced externally. And leave this delusional that morality (an internal system of rules) is a good thing.
But why is this suggestion more logical than mine, which is system where the standard of behaviour are created and supported externally, but enforced via a combination of external (legal) and internal (moral) checks?

You're arguing that there is a logical conclusion here. So put your argument into a clear logical format - premises, assumptions and conclusion.

Assumption : There is no absolute moral code.
Premise 1 : Morals are a standard of behaviour that are enforced internally (the negative consequences of immoral behaviour are self imposed).
Premise 2 : ????
...
Conclusion : Therefore, a perfect human would have no use for morals.

Can you fill in the gaps above? I still struggle to see how you get from the start to the finish.

[Christian]

Scribble wrote:
You're also the one who has decided not to respond to most of my last message. Even though I found your position ridiculous, I didn't ignore it. You are ignoring me because you have backed yourself into a corner: your ridiculous words are still drying and you can't step over them without getting yourself covered in wet ridicule.

You think so? As I said it is very easy to show your position is intellectually dishonest.

Do you find it so unbelievable that someone on this board might have been a 'fugitive from the law?' Do you find it so hard to believe that people sometimes avoid serving their warrants?

Might have been? Some of the dishonesty coming through here?

You are completely detached from reality. Enjoy your fantasies.

Am I? We’ll see.

Posted by me:
As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.

Well, I'm waiting.

You state there are no rules you MUST follow and have rejected ten I have given. You claim you have broken those rules and you also taunted that as of that moment in the discussion you were breaking some of them (smoking and going out naked in public).

So, why not show me (us) with testable (verifiable) rules, that you can break them as well right here on this website: Here let me post some of the rules of this forum and please go ahead and prove me wrong by breaking them.

And sure you can cop-out by stating that if you really wanted to you could but you wont because you simply don’t want to or because you wont be manipulated by me. (or any other reason you wish to give for not braking them).

Here the rules MUST follow in this website that you claim you don’t have to follow:

The post is potentially criminal
-(e.g., kiddie porn, links to viruses, etc.). Such posts will be referred to proper legal channels.

So, go ahead and post child pornography or links to viruses.

The post is obscene
-Like the Supreme Court, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it. We want this to be a work-friendly website. We will allow links to sites but with a warning that the site could contain material considered objectionable. We do not want to be banned from libraries or schools because of sexual or violent content. At the same time, we do not want to censor discussion and dialogue. We also do not want to cause potential grantors to deny funding based on obscene or objectionable material.

So, go ahead and post pornographic pictures.


The post contains copyright-protected material without proper permissions.
-Note: while we accept the "fair use" doctrine, we also understand that copyright extends to the internet
-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.
-See http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm and http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht for a law firm specializing in web copyright issues for more information.
-Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.

Please go ahead and post copyrighted material as to clearly violate the “fair use” doctrine and that it constitute a federal offense.

Keep a civil tongue
The administrator may, with or without warning, suspend or ban users whom he feels are acting in a manner destructive of the forum or the goals of the JREF. Simply put, Don't be a Jerk. Such decisions may be appealed to Linda or Randi by email

Please go ahead and use the words that are not allowed in this forum as many times as you like.

Members of the Forum may be Suspended and/or Banned
-The default position of the JREF is that, within the guidelines noted above, no opinion and/or judgment is unacceptable. That is to say, the content of a post is presumed allowed, a priori.
-There are, as noted, exceptions. Similarly, no poster will be suspended or banned from the forum just because of the particular set of views he/she holds. However, the Administrator may suspend posters for violations of the rules. He will endeavor to give proper warnings, but may choose to suspend/ban without warning if the situation, in his judgment, requires it. For example, a person posting a virus, or a dozen commercial spam messages might find their access limited. Banning is, of course, the ultimate sanction on a forum.
-The policy of the JREF is to resist banning whenever possible, and to never ban simply for the point of view a poster may hold. Banning, when implemented, will be only in response to repeated and willful violations of forum rules or decorum. Except in the most extraordinary situations, no one will be banned without at least two warnings. Only the Administrators may ban a member.
-On Trolls and Trolling: In multiple conversations with Mr. Randi, Linda, Jeff, Hal, and Andrew, it was decided that trolls whose only purpose is to troll are counterproductive to a successful educational forum. It is the JREF’s desire that the forum exist as a venue for the sharing of ideas and concepts, not as caldron of incivility. We certainly recognize that the forum, in addition to being of educational value, it is also an online community that welcomes pure fun and entertainment as well. It is the stance of the JREF that trolling enhances neither. Therefore, trolling is not permitted. Trolling is a difficult concept to define, and therefore and only in the most egregious cases, will suspension or banning be considered as the sanction. Only forum administrators have the power to suspend or ban, and only after consultation with one another.

Please violate these rules as to have more than the warnings allowed by the administrators.

My next door neighbor would ocassionally call the cops at my old apartment. I was always profoundly apologetic - and I really did feel bad. But that's not my point at all. My point was you said I MUST NOT play loud music at night. Well, you're wrong. I can and did.

Oh, so did the cops make you comply? When they said that you must keep it down, did you say, no I wont?

You're wrong. Lying is ALWYS bad, even if it's a "little white lie" - because it's not my place to dictate a false reality to another person. That would have the real world effect of causing them to be delusional - or angry at me if they saw through the lie.

So, if a serial killer asks you if there is anyone else in the house, and a family member is hiding there, you would tell him the truth?

Or if a family member asks you think their child is cute (and you believe the child is very ugly) you would say he isn’t?

Just not to concede, I’m can guess what you are going to answer.

Amazing how none of the moral rules you brought up fits your own definiton of having no consequences...

Not amazing at all.


Loki wrote:
But what else have you (perhaps) also achieved Christian? What other result might lurk behind the apparent short term gain? Perhaps your daughter has been taught that it's *sometimes* okay for a man to strike a woman. Perhaps the true lesson (the long term result) you've implanted is yet to show it's face?

Perhaps. We’ll just have to wait and see.

You claim short, medium and long tern results for your actions - then claim that the actions are effective because the short term results are obvious. Perhaps the truth lies deeper?

Perhaps.

How do you measure the long term results? How do you isolate the variables to achieve this long term meaurement?

Because I don’t live in a vacuum and I’m not the only one who has educated kids this way.

Well, you've never touched a cigarette *so far*!! But even if it turns out that you spend your entire life a non-smoker (me too) perhaps this action of your father's leads (indirectly) to a drinking problem? Again, how do you measure and isolate the long term effects?

Loki, I’m 37 years old, I don’t smoke, don’t drink and I’m pretty sure that if I didn’t start when I was younger, it is very unlikely that I will start now or the future.

I can assure you with as much sincerity as I can muster that the 2 cases I was referring too *absolutely cannot* be a case of 'mental adultery' leading to marital problems, leading to physical adultery. I'm not prepared to go into details on a public forum (and no, it's not my personal details!), but I was a close friend of a couple that went through such issues, and it was the woman who finally commited adultery - but the marriage problems went back years before. The seeds of that marriages' collapse were nothing to do with adultery - that was simply the final step in a long decay. In fact, within weeks of the adultery occuring, the marriage was over, and now 18 months later both parties are significantly happier - the woman in particular is finally out of a (verbally) abusive marriage, and has a child with a new man. They seem the picture of happiness. The adulterer (the woman) seems to have completely turned her life around, and is happier than at anytime that I've known her. She often makes comments along the lines of "the weight is gone" and "I feel so free" and "I can't believe that I used to live like that".

I don’t know how you can know what thoughts went through her head. But, anyway, yes many things can lead to divorce as many things can lead to toothaches. (not trying to be funny.)

I'm sure you believe that the "negative result" of her adultery lies before her, and I guess if 10 years from now something has gone wrong in her life you'll claim it as proof that you were right. Basically, you can't lose, right? Even if the short term result here from the adultery appears to be a significant upgrade in the quality of both people's lives, you'll still claim any future pain as being the medium or long tern result?

I can’t judge those things. It would be impossible for me to. But, I’m sure she can. She can know for sure the consequences of her actions.

The short term pain in that situation was carried by the man (the victim of the adultery). The marriage lasted about 4 days after the adultery occured. How do I read the short term result here????

But this is a complex issue. You can’t really expect me to analyze this particular case in any meaningful way.

But why is this suggestion more logical than mine, which is system where the standard of behaviour are created and supported externally, but enforced via a combination of external (legal) and internal (moral) checks?

History and the world around us.

You're arguing that there is a logical conclusion here. So put your argument into a clear logical format - premises, assumptions and conclusion.

Assumption : There is no absolute moral code.
Premise 1 : Morals are a standard of behaviour that are enforced internally (the negative consequences of immoral behaviour are self imposed).
Premise 2 : ????

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective

And you know, we can test this in the real world. Show me any standard, and those that can be externally verified, are useful, those which cannot be verified are useless.

Can you fill in the gaps above? I still struggle to see how you get from the start to the finish.

I have tried.

[Loki]

Christian,

I don’t know how you can know what thoughts went through her head.
Which is why I conceded that I cannot prove my position here - I *know* this person, and my wife and I were about as close to this situation as you can get without actually being a participant, so I have some confidence in my understanding of the situation. In particular, I have enormous problems with thinking that the marital issues (which stretched back at least 6 years) were begun or accentuated by the woman endulging in 'mental adultery'. I have no doubt at all that adultery (mental, physical, emotional, whatever) occured once the marriage had essentially collapsed, but was still technically valid. The adultery was an effect, not a cause.

You disagree - we'll have to leave it there, I think.

I can’t judge those things. It would be impossible for me to. But, I’m sure she can. She can know for sure the consequences of her actions.
True - you and I can only guess and theorise. All I'll say here is to repeat that *at this time* she says she's happier. Very much happier. A new relatoinship, a new child, a new home, a new job. She's put most of her health issues behind her (for now?), and has rediscovered her skills at pottery - has been exhibiting some of her works, etc. I can't find anything in her life that appears to be worse that it was - most things are better by a wide margin.

But this is a complex issue.
Yep - despite the fact rhat you claim a clear and obvious relatoinship between "commiting adultery" and "marital problems"

You can’t really expect me to analyze this particular case in any meaningful way.
Nope - it's purely anecdotal. Just trying to explain why I have trouble believing in this "iron fist" of moral retribution for adulterers.

Let me be clear, Christian - I think that commiting adultery is actually *not* immoral under some circumstances, and totally immoral under others! It's the circumstances, not the act, that matter. However, in the vast majority of cases, I think that commiting adultery leads to (or occurs with) marital problems. What these problems are, how they manifest themselves, and what the ultimate outcome is, is complex!

I'd agree with you that if we took a sample 100 couples, and we watched for the act of adultery and what happens next, we'd probably see 100 cases of marital problems. I'd also argue that if we looked back to the time before the adultery that in perhaps 90 of those cases we'd see marital problems anyway.

In short, I'm afraid I can't see how you can call *all* adultery immoral, and I can't see how you can establish that it's anything more than another marital problem, rather than the root of the problems.

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective
You don't think that P4 is a little bit like assuming your conclusion? You're tying to reach the conclusion that internal rules are ineffective, and one of your premises is that internal rules have not been shown to be effective? So you're invoking the additional premise :

"P5: Things that have not been shown to be effective *must* be ineffective"?

And you know, we can test this in the real world. Show me any standard, and those that can be externally verified, are useful, those which cannot be verified are useless.
You know, perhaps you're right! For example, I don't think that adultery, incest, or striking children are inherently immoral behaviours - it's the circumstances that matter. In *most* circumstances, I believe this behaviours are immoral, but not all. The things that make the distinction are the objective, verifiable circumstances. Perhaps my "internal code" is nothing more than my attempt to measure and verify the objective circumstances?

[daenku32]

Christian, all I can conclude, is that what you ment as lack of morals for atheists etc, is nothing bad at all. Period.

You have succeeded in removing any good or bad insinnuations of your original comment. It has become to mean nothing of significance that would separate them of anyone else. Could have just said "Atheists breath air".

Unfortunately your original comment with it's english language describtions still exist, making it a deragatory remark.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Which is why I conceded that I cannot prove my position here - I *know* this person, and my wife and I were about as close to this situation as you can get without actually being a participant, so I have some confidence in my understanding of the situation. In particular, I have enormous problems with thinking that the marital issues (which stretched back at least 6 years) were begun or accentuated by the woman endulging in 'mental adultery'. I have no doubt at all that adultery (mental, physical, emotional, whatever) occured once the marriage had essentially collapsed, but was still technically valid. The adultery was an effect, not a cause.

You disagree - we'll have to leave it there, I think.

I agree that divorce can be consequence of many actions not just adultery. This is true. And I said that adultery leads to negative consequences not necessarily divorce.

Our disagreement is not here. Our disagreement is that you believe adultery (in certain circumstances) does not have negative external consequences. I believe it always has.

And here is evidence that I'm correct to say that morality is irrelevant to MA. I shall not commit adultery is a relative rule.

True - you and I can only guess and theorise. All I'll say here is to repeat that *at this time* she says she's happier. Very much happier. A new relatoinship, a new child, a new home, a new job. She's put most of her health issues behind her (for now?), and has rediscovered her skills at pottery - has been exhibiting some of her works, etc. I can't find anything inher life that appears to be worse that it was - most things are better by a wide margin.

Did she have children from her prior marriage?

Yep - despite the fact rhat you claim a clear and obvious relatoinship between "commiting adultery" and "marital"

It is complex because there are many moral choices and many moral consequences.

Let me be clear, Christian - I think that commiting adultery is actually *not* imorral under some circumstances, and totally immoral under others! It's the circumstances, not the act, that matter.

Yep, that is clear.

I believe it is an objective rule with consequences. Here lies the difference.

However, in the vast majority of cases, I think that commiting adultery leads to marital problems. What these problems are, how they manifest themselves, and what the ultimate outcome is, is complex!

Ahh, but when you say the vast majority of cases is because empirically you have seen a specific pattern.

In short, I'm afraid I can't see how you can call *all* adultery immoral, and I can't see how you can establish that it's anything more than another marital problem, rather than the root of the problems.

I call 100% of all adultery immoral because, to me, it is an external rule with external consequences.

You don't believe in such things.

You don't think that P4 is a little bit like assuming your conclusion? You're tying to reach the conclusion that internal rules are ineffective, and one of your premises is that internal rules have not been shown to be effective? So you're invoking the additional premise :

"P5: Things that have not been shown to be effective *must* be ineffective"?

Maybe it should read like this:

For things to be effective, they must be shown to be effective.

But it amounts to the same thing, I guess.


daenku32 wrote:
Christian, all I can conclude, is that what you ment as lack of morals for atheists etc, is nothing bad at all. Period.

You have succeeded in removing any good or bad insinnuations of your original comment. It has become to mean nothing of significance that would separate them of anyone else. Could have just said "Atheists breath air".

Well, it has implications, bigger than just a simple statement.

[Fun2BFree]

Christian-

You can criticize my reading ability but your writing and your words were quoted verbatim and NOT out of context--you have contradicted yourself all over the place. You speak of real world consequences coming from whatever it is you say is immoral and that by definition is a materialist position...if the bad consequences occur in the real world as a result of the bad behaviour that is an external not an internal rule...

You claim athiests are somehow always the rulemakers and the rule checkers on their own as opposed to the spiritual like yourself...ok who decides that for you Christianity's rule book is the correct one? Who decides if you are following the right rules and fudging the others (and the Bible both old and new is full of rules that I guarantee you are not following)..Who decides which are the really important rules? Who decides which action leads to which consequence and who judges the outcome in these cases like your abusing your daughter? Seems like it comes down to you and you alone everytime...the materialist likes to see some INDEPENDENT verification of observation..independent -as in not biased by foregone conclusions....I fyou think you are conducting your life in some objective fashion free from the biases both borne and apparently beaten into you---you are a liar and the one you are lying to is you.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective

I find this oddly disturbing. It demonstrates an essential lack of trust; basically it says that people will always make poor choices if left to their own devices. It demonstrates an obsession with the letter of the law that can only come from one who fails to grasp the concept of the spirit of the law. It demonstrates an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for making difficult choices in the face of uncertainty. It's like a kid who keeps asking, "whaddam I spozed to do?", because he doesn't get it that being a grown up means not constantly having to ask that; it means sticking your neck out sometimes and making a tough call -- and maybe getting it wrong, and then having to live with that.

As I see it, the ugly truth is that we are not only free to decide what is moral, we are obligated to do so -- and this despite the fact that the world is not black and white. It would be nice if all the answers really were in some book.

Never mind.

[Darat]

Hi Christian

Just been reading through this thread and it reminded of a discussion with you from a long time ago that touched on similar ideas.

One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

[Christian]

Fun2BFree wrote:
You can criticize my reading ability but your writing and your words were quoted verbatim and NOT out of context--you have contradicted yourself all over the place.

Listen, maybe this next device will help. Hopefully. I’m not contradicting myself, it is clear that I take different position according to the PERSPECTIVE I’m using.

So, maybe, this device will help. Have you ever heard of the THINKING HATS? I hope you have.

Ok,

[Materialist/Atheist hat on] There are no external negative consequences to breaking moral rules.[MA hat off]

[Christian hat on] There are external negative consequences to breaking moral rules

So, if you read carefully, you will see that that is what I was doing. Using different perspectives, using hats.

You claim athiests are somehow always the rulemakers and the rule checkers on their own as opposed to the spiritual like yourself...ok who decides that for you Christianity's rule book is the correct one?

This is a fair question. The Bible is the rule book for Christians

Who decides if you are following the right rules and fudging the others (and the Bible both old and new is full of rules that I guarantee you are not following)..Who decides which are the really important rules?

The results.

Who decides which action leads to which consequence and who judges the outcome in these cases like your abusing your daughter?

Well, now you are into legal territory, aren’t you? Abusing a child has legal standards.

And you have no right to tell me I’m abusing her. You are not entitled to that opinion on a public forum. You get that?

Do you get that your contempt for other people does not allow to accuse them of a felony? Do you get that.? Does that register? I hope it does.

you are a liar and the one you are lying to is you.

You are allowed to insult me. (but you are not allowed to use some words? Thank goodness.


Dymanic wrote:
I find this oddly disturbing. It demonstrates an essential lack of trust; basically it says that people will always make poor choices if left to their own devices.

Yes, most people will try to maximize their utility at the expense of others. The market economic system is based on this premise.

It demonstrates an obsession with the letter of the law that can only come from one who fails to grasp the concept of the spirit of the law.

I’m not sure this is the same topic.


Darat wrote:
One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

I say that all immoral acts have negative consequences. Does it amount to the same thing?

[Loki]

Christian,

Perhaps it's just been a terminology problem - I may just now be catching up with SlimShady's comments way back near the start of the thread!

I think I may agree with you on most of this, but have been using different terms. But to help me understand, I need a little more info.

All thoughts/behaviours can be divided into two camps - moral, and immoral. You believe that the bible clearly details some of these behaviours (eg adultery). It may be ambiguous about some others (eg slavery?), and it may fail to mention others at all (human cloning?). In order to either validate, interpret or extend the biblical basis, it seems to me you are suggesting something like this :

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. See if 'negative consequences' follow
3. Repeat 1-2 a suitable number of times
4. If there is a 100% correlation between the behaviour and a negative consequence then the behaviour is immoral.

From this, we can build up a list of immoral behaviours with some confidence.

A few questions :

Are all behaviours that produce negative consequences immoral? (Not the same as saying all immoral behaviours produce negative consequences)

What about behaviours that produce both positive and negative consequences? Taking it further, what if a behaviour produces postive and negative consequences but in no fixed ratio (sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative)? Are such behaviours moral, amoral, immoral, or impossible?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect yourself only? Is this still immoral?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect others but not yourself? Is this still immoral?

What about a behaviour that has negative consequences in one social or historical setting, but not another? A woman walking the streets of New Yourk with her face uncovered is unlikely to cause any problems - but the same behaviour in a village in Iran is likely to cause disruption. Is the behaviour immoral in both, one only, or neither setting? Since you're arguing for an absolute standard, the answer must be 'both' or 'neither' - but how can we tell from just examining 'consequences'?

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
All thoughts/behaviours can be divided into two camps - moral, and immoral.

I agree.

You believe that the bible clearly details some of these behaviours (eg adultery).

Yes. It also gives guidelines, general principles that can be applied to specific situations.

It may be ambiguous about some others (eg slavery?), and it may fail to mention others at all (human cloning?).

I don’t see ambiguity (but let’s not get into that one). Even though it does not mention specific situations, the guidelines and principles give light about them.

In order to either validate, interpret or extend the biblical basis, it seems to me you are suggesting something like this :

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. See if 'negative consequences' follow
3. Repeat 1-2 a suitable number of times
4. If there is a 100% correlation between the behaviour and a negative consequence then the behaviour is immoral.

Let me modify this a little (or a lot).

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. Read what the Bible has to say about it
3. Determine the morality based on it
4. By faith, know that there will be a negative consequence.

From this, we can build up a list of immoral behaviours with some confidence.

The list is in the Bible.

A few questions :

Are all behaviours that produce negative consequences immoral? (Not the same as saying all immoral behaviours produce negative consequences)

Loki, you are treating me like a kid here, but ok. I will play along.

Of course not, behaviors that produce negative consequences that are not immoral are called MISTAKES (and by the way, indispensable for growth)

What about behaviours that produce both positive and negative consequences?

Those are called learning experiences??? You really have little regards for my intelligence and common sense. I understand.

Taking it further, what if a behaviour produces postive and negative consequences but in no fixed ratio (sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative)? Are such behaviours moral, amoral, immoral, or impossible?

An expensive learning experience and a lucky learning experience??? If you hit your finger with a hammer, how do YOU classify that negative consequence?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect yourself only? Is this still immoral?

Are we done?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect others but not yourself? Is this still immoral?

Guess not. Ok, this one might warrant a more philosophical answer. It is possible that a behavior be moral and bring negative consequences to other, e.g. killing someone in self-defense, wiping out a population of people that have a highly contagious deadly disease (did you see the movie 28 Days Later?)

What about a behaviour that has negative consequences in one social or historical setting, but not another? A woman walking the streets of New Yourk with her face uncovered is unlikely to cause any problems - but the same behaviour in a village in Iran is likely to cause disruption. Is the behaviour immoral in both, one only, or neither setting?

The problem Loki is that you are trying to punch holes in my worldview by exposing inconsistencies, but you are going about the wrong way. (the route of negative consequences, I guess taken from my statement that all immoral behavior has negative external consequences.)

Since you're arguing for an absolute standard, the answer must be 'both' or 'neither' - but how can we tell from just examining 'consequences'?

Ok, I have tested the Bible to be true because I have experienced the consequences. From there, I generalize that all immoral behavior has consequences.

I don’t go about it, testing the effect to arrive at the cause. I go about it, experiencing the effect of braking the principle.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Yes, most people will try to maximize their utility at the expense of others. The market economic system is based on this premise.
Of course. But to assume that most people, in their attempts to better their positions, will practice treachery and brutality and unrestrained hedonism as an ordinary matter of course -- to begin with that assumption seems, frankly, pathological. Christianity is based on this premise. You assume that only external rules can be effective because humans, being sinful by nature, are not capable of formulating moral principles as the result of any internal process. Yet, humans have a natural capacity for shame and self-doubt (Romans 2:14,15). Christianity became a powerful political institution by capitalizing on this natural proclivity; reinforcing it, and utilizing it as a manipulative tool.

The Bible is the rule book for Christians For one sincerely seeking answers, it is likely to be confusing and contradictory at best. For many, it seems to be primarily a weapon, in a game of power, intimidation, and one-upmanship.

I don’t see ambiguity (but let’s not get into that one)Aw c'mon, be a sport. Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

[Loki]

Christian,

... you are treating me like a kid here, but ok. I will play along.
...
The problem Loki is that you are trying to punch holes in my worldview by exposing inconsistencies, but you are going about the wrong way.
No, you misunderstand me. I'm asking such basic questions because I want to be sure I fully/finally understand your position. Seeking clarity, not laying a trap.

Would you are agree with this statement?

"If a thought/behaviour *cannot* have negative consequences in this world, then it cannot be immoral"?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
Of course. But to assume that most people, in their attempts to better their positions, will practice treachery and brutality and unrestrained hedonism as an ordinary matter of course -- to begin with that assumption seems, frankly, pathological.

But that is not the assumption, is it?

Christianity is based on this premise. You assume that only external rules can be effective because humans, being sinful by nature, are not capable of formulating moral principles as the result of any internal process.

On pathology, I'm not sure I would put this way. But, yes, Christianity has the premise that humans are by nature bad.

If you think about it, all systems of control are based on this premise. For example, a home equity loan has requirements as to protect itself from default.

Aw c'mon, be a sport. Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

Sure, but with one condition: You have to agree to restate my position as for me to clearly known you understand my position (before commenting or attacking it)

No, you misunderstand me. I'm asking such basic questions because I want to be sure I fully/finally understand your position. Seeking clarity, not laying a trap.

Ok, I will take your word.

Would you are agree with this statement?

"If a thought/behaviour *cannot* have negative consequences in this world, then it cannot be immoral"?

If you are saying that it is impossible for an immoral thought/behavior not to have a negative external consequence in this world, then, I agree.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

But, yes, Christianity has the premise that humans are by nature bad.

If you think about it, all systems of control are based on this premise.I certainly agree with you that Christianity is a 'control system', and yes, degradation of the victim is a technique commonly used by those in the business of dominating others.
Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

Sure, but with one condition: You have to agree to restate my position as for me to clearly known you understand my position (before commenting or attacking it)Your position seems clear enough:

"the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian

Darat wrote:
One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

I say that all immoral acts have negative consequences. Does it amount to the same thing?

But I thought we'd agreed that incest may not be immoral in some circumstances?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
I certainly agree with you that Christianity is a 'control system', and yes, degradation of the victim is a technique commonly used by those in the business of dominating others.

You are giving opinios according to your worldview, I understand that.

Every system has the element of control in it. Human create systems that are highly controlled. If not, it degrades.

Your position seems clear enough:

"the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines."

That's not what I mean, I mean that I will begin to give you my understanding of stuff. So, before you attack it, please only restate it, as I can understand you got what I'm trying to say in this new question of yours.

But I thought we'd agreed that incest may not be immoral in some circumstances?

When incest is immoral, it has always negative external consequences.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

That's not what I mean, I mean that I will begin to give you my understanding of stuff. So, before you attack it, please only restate it, as I can understand you got what I'm trying to say in this new question of yours
.....uh, so you're saying that before you will answer my questions, I must agree to...uh...
restate your understanding of stuff...
so you can get a better understanding...
of my understanding...
of your understanding.
Right?

That seems so complicated. What I put in quotes above was my best effort at meeeting your 'condition', as I understood it. Do you agree with the statement: the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines or not? If so, are we not ready to proceed?

These questions are simple:
1)Is slavery moral, or immoral?
2)Is slavery moral, or immoral according to the bible?

Maybe once you have made at least some attempt to answer, we'll be better able to explore the recursive nuances of our respective understandings.

Since the question I asked earlier (about consequences for Christian adulterers) is a little more complicated, I'll continue to ignore that one for now (as you have done).

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
.....uh, so you're saying that before you will answer my questions, I must agree to...uh...
restate your understanding of stuff...
so you can get a better understanding...
of my understanding...
of your understanding.
Right?

Something like that.

That seems so complicated. What I put in quotes above was my best effort at meeeting your 'condition', as I understood it. Do you agree with the statement: the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines or not? If so, are we not ready to proceed?

Ok.

These questions are simple:
1)Is slavery moral, or immoral?
2)Is slavery moral, or immoral according to the bible?

Maybe once you have made at least some attempt to answer, we'll be better able to explore the recursive nuances of our respective understandings.

No, they are not simple, and it worries me, when you say they are simple because, I have to think of the hill I have to climb first to explain to you why your framework is all wrong. (I'm assuming your framework from the way you posted the question the first time.

So, I'm debating (with myself) is it worth the effort to first have to explain a foundation, then answer satisfactorily the question.

I can't answer the question, if first I'm not sure we are going to agree on reference material that is indispensible to answer the question.

But, I will give it a try with one such reference material.

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.

There was a time when the survival of society depended on this system.

So, when the survival of society has no other recourse but to depend on slavery, it is not only moral to have and use slaves, it is indispensible.

When the survival of society is not dependent on slavery, it is immoral to have such a system.

Is killing immoral? When someone attacks me and my survival depends on killing the attacker, it is moral to kill him. It is immoral to kill him, if no such condition exists.


I have no idea if I'm getting accross here.

Since the question I asked earlier (about consequences for Christian adulterers) is a little more complicated, I'll continue to ignore that one for now (as you have done).

What question?, I missed it, I've been writting a lot.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
...snip...

When incest is immoral, it has always negative external consequences.

Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Or are you saying that any "immoral" action (as described by one of the Christian Bibles) will always have negative consequences even if those consequences can only be known once you are dead and have left the "material" world and entered the "immaterial" world?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian

But, I will give it a try with one such reference material.

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.

There was a time when the survival of society depended on this system.


I cannot think of the time period you are speaking, where abolition of slavery would have doomed the human race. Would you care to specify what documentation you are taking this from?

As far as I'm aware, people have always been CAPABLE of doing their OWN work... just sometimes not WILLING.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Yes, exactly. If the only people left in the world to procreate be brother and sister, then it is a moral duty for them to procreate.

Or are you saying that any "immoral" action (as described by one of the Christian Bibles) will always have negative consequences even if those consequences can only be known once you are dead and have left the "material" world and entered the "immaterial" world?

I believe immoral actions have external consequences here on earth.

scribble wrote:
I cannot think of the time period you are speaking, where abolition of slavery would have doomed the human race.

Because you are thinking with a 21 Century mind where everything is connected. A particular tribe or set of people would be in jeopardy if they did not use slaves.

Think of all the ancient empires, they were all built on the economic system of slavery. That was a necessary step in human history. Cause and effect.

Capitalism, with it's horrible consequences (it creates enormous inequalities) is indispensable today. Maybe in 100 years, with a more advanced economic system, some ignorant people (of such matters) of our process will judge us immoral to allow such inequalities. (actually a lot of people already do, those nuts activists)

Would you care to specify what documentation you are taking this from?

Hey, man, you gotta read your history. Ok, maybe a simple link will give you a hint that slavery is a huge topic.

Slavery (http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/mores/slaves/index.htm)

As far as I'm aware, people have always been CAPABLE of doing their OWN work... just sometimes not WILLING.

Yep, you've said it. As far as you are aware.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Slavery is an economic system. It was the first successful full blown economic system humans invented.At most, I could concede that slavery might be a component of an economic system, as might robbery, murder for gain, prostitution, gambling, or shamanism. Which of these came first is probably not important for the purpose of this discussion. Are you saying that the moral implications of these things change if enough people depend enough on them for a livlihood?

When the survival of society is not dependent on slavery, it is immoral to have such a system.Where in the bible does it say that? Since you have stated -- in no uncertain terms -- that the bible is the rule book, it seems logical to assume then that you have some scriptural basis for this assertion. If it's simply a judgement call on your part, how is this any different from such a call made by an MA?

What question?, I missed it, I've been writting a lot.My response to this statement by you:

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action..

I won't repost it. It's the third post on the third page of this thread.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Darat wrote:
Help me out here Christian! This does look like you are saying that incest is neither immoral nor moral and it is the circumstances that make it immoral or not.

Yes, exactly. If the only people left in the world to procreate be brother and sister, then it is a moral duty for them to procreate.

...snip...

So morality is just relative?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
At most, I could concede that slavery might be a component of an economic system, as might robbery, murder for gain, prostitution, gambling, or shamanism.

So, as you can see, before diving into any discussion of the slavery as immoral or moral. First, we have to agree on the fact if slavery is an economic system and the role it has played throughout history.

For this you need a history curriculum, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, etc.

But maybe some light will get through if you think about the Great Pyramids. How did the Egiptians build them?

The other curriculum to study is economic theory. If you are equating robbery to slavery, then there is a knowledge gap about the subject.

Do you know that there are a lot of book about that economic system in America? There are some authors that argue that the US would not have prospered beyond the rest of the continent without slavery. Whether we accept the argument or not, these book shed light on the dynamics of slavery and its economic impact on a society.

Are you saying that the moral implications of these things change if enough people depend enough on them for a livlihood?

And then we come to the subject of Anthropology. In many tribes, it is expected that the mother kill her own offspring if it is borned with a deformity.

This is done because it is essential to the survival of the tribe. Is this behavior immoral. I say not.

If you take and anthropogy course, you will come across the term "ethnocentricity". It describes the mental process of judging other cultures or societies based on the standards of yours.

For example, in many tribal societies (according to the geographic situation), women are very, very important to the survival of the tribe.

So, they are used for exchange. I give a you woman, you give me 20 cows.

Where in the bible does it say that? Since you have stated -- in no uncertain terms -- that the bible is the rule book, it seems logical to assume then that you have some scriptural basis for this assertion.

1 Corinthians 7 NIV
21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Now, to understand the context of this passage, one must know a little about Roman Law. If you study Roman Law you will see that slave could win their freedom precisely because slavery was an economic condition. And based on economic rules, you could buy your freedom.

It is completely logical to go through the mental process of determing that once all economic conditions have been met, there should be no slaves.

It was illegal for a Roman citizen to deny freedom to a slave who had already met the requirements for freedom.

If it's simply a judgement call on your part, how is this any different from such a call made by an MA?

Not at all.

My response to this statement by you:

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action..

I won't repost it. It's the third post on the third page of this thread.

I missed it or thought was being answered by the Loki exchange.

By Dymanic
Are you saying that the Christian adulterer faces consequences in heaven -- in addition to the earthly consequences both he and the atheist adulterer face?

I think that is true. He could face consequences in heave as well.

Matthew 6 NIV

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Prayer

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Fasting

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Treasures in Heaven

19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.



Darat wrote:
So morality is just relative?

Just like physics.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

First, we have to agree on the fact if slavery is an economic system...

For this you need a history curriculum, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, etc...

The other curriculum to study is economic theory...

And then we come to the subject of Anthropology...


Yes, I understand what you're saying here, and I couldn't agree more. Meanings can so easily get twisted when something is lifted out of a particular cultural frame of reference (the 'rod' in Proverbs 13:24, for example, refers to a common shepherd's implement, used to guide -- not beat -- sheep). And that's not even counting difficulties with translation.

But assume for the moment that I know little or nothing about history, economics, anthropology, political science, etc. (ah...you seem already to have done so...excellent). So, I'm just a regular ordinary, every day guy. How is the bible going to do me any good as a guide to moral principles when I can't understand half of what I read in it, and half of the half I do understand I understand wrong?

He could face consequences in heaven as well.
The passages you quoted didn't seem particularly relevant to this, other than the use of the plural, 'treasures'. You agree that morality is relative. Do you consider grace to be relative also?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Darat wrote:
So morality is just relative?

Just like physics.

Is that a yes or no Christian? Or do you need to elaborate a bit more?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
Yes, I understand what you're saying here, and I couldn't agree more. Meanings can so easily get twisted when something is lifted out of a particular cultural frame of reference (the 'rod' in Proverbs 13:24, for example, refers to a common shepherd's implement, used to guide -- not beat -- sheep). And that's not even counting difficulties with translation.

Ok.

But assume for the moment that I know little or nothing about history, economics, anthropology, political science, etc. (ah...you seem already to have done so...excellent).

I haven't assumed this.

How is the bible going to do me any good as a guide to moral principles when I can't understand half of what I read in it, and half of the half I do understand I understand wrong?


Just like with anything that is vast and complex. You study.

Someone can study physics, for example, in many ways, depending on his style of learning. Some people study by themselves, some go to school.

Now, there is an added guide to Christian. This is God.

The passages you quoted didn't seem particularly relevant to this, other than the use of the plural, 'treasures'. You agree that morality is relative. Do you consider grace to be relative also?

It is very relevant to what you asked.

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern them. Just like physics.

Gravity is a universal force, but depending on what planet you are in, that's the force you are pulled toward it.

Is that a yes or no Christian? Or do you need to elaborate a bit more?

The specific rules may change, this is what can be relative. The principles do not.

The Bible teaches that human are the supreme creation fo God. This is a driving principle.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Just like with anything that is vast and complex. You study.You're right. I do. The problem I have with Christianity is that it made a lot better sense before I started to do that -- when I was relying a lot on...enthusiasm on the part of others, I guess.

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern themI agree completely. And I realize that I missed a post of yours on page 1:

I had said:
I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence.

You responded:
Be careful here, you are arguing that there are universal rules of moral conduct.

And, yes, I am. Although 'rules' isn't really quite the right word. The law of gravity isn't a rule which objects may either obey or violate; it is an observation about the way things work. So if I suggest that one of the immutable laws of nature is the 'law of consequences', I mean it in that sense. As has been mentioned here, Christianity (well, Judaism actually) didn't invent these universals, it just co-opted them.

Whether moral principles exist in a Platonic sense (i.e., independent of human thought) is a question I continue to find fascinating and unresolvable. But there is certainly no question that there are certain rules of moral conduct that are universal among all humans. They did not emerge exclusively among tribes of middle-eastern herdsmen.

I had said:
How about negative internal consequences?

You responded:
Can you give me examples of negative internal consequences?

"...with the measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". See...as an atheist, I don't believe in the soul. This is it. My little slice of eternity is happening right now. Whatever I make myself (through my actions) is all I will ever be. Whatever I do, I get to be that. Effective immediately. Now, there are things about me that I like, and things about me that I don't like, and they struggle inside me (just as Paul describes in Romans 7). No one but me knows what those struggles are, or how often I win (or even what that means, for me). But I know. I either choose to do what I think is right (when I'm strong) or what I think is wrong (when I'm weak), and the choice I make carries the consequence that I get to be either something I like, or something I don't like. What I don't get to do is choose what I think is right and what I think is wrong. Those may change, but that's a different process, one which takes place slowly, and not entirely by my own volition. I don't get to choose when to feel shame.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
...snip...

The specific rules may change, this is what can be relative. The principles do not.

The Bible teaches that human are the supreme creation fo God. This is a driving principle.

...snip...


We are both using English but I think we aren't communicating. (Not unusual for us :) )

I still don't understand if your answer to "So morality is just relative?" is yes or no.

We have both agreed that sometimes depending on the circumstances incest may not be immoral and indeed may even be moral.

How is that different from saying that morals are therefore relative and not absolute?

[Loki]

Christian,

Somewhat surprisingly, we seem to be converging here - you seem to be (now) saying pretty much what I believe! You said :

Morality is relative only in the sense that the specific rules may change but not the principles that govern them.
As best I can tell, you are really asserting only one unchanging "principle" - that a specific cause will generate a specific effect. If we repeat the cause exactly, we repeat the effect exactly. If the details of the cause change, the details of the effect change.

If incest occurs in manner 'x' (an immoral act), it will produce effect 'y' (a negative result). If we reproduce 'X' at some later time, we will also get 'Y' again. However, if we change 'X' slightly, then 'Y' will change slightly. If we change 'X' sufficiently, then incest occuring in manner 'X+z' becomes moral (!), and the effect 'Y+z' becomes neutral, or even positive.

I fail to see how this differs in any significant way from my own opinions...I guess we agree?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
So if I suggest that one of the immutable laws of nature is the 'law of consequences', I mean it in that sense. As has been mentioned here, Christianity (well, Judaism actually) didn't invent these universals, it just co-opted them.

I understand what you say.

Here is the thing. Saying that there are universal principles of that govern morality opens a can of worms for MA.

If you want, when we get done with this thread you can join the thread where I will explain why I think that is.

Whether moral principles exist in a Platonic sense (i.e., independent of human thought) is a question I continue to find fascinating and unresolvable.

If they are not independente of human thought, then by definition, they can't be universal. Do you see why there could be a possible contradiction in the MA view?

Darat wrote:
We are both using English but I think we aren't communicating. (Not unusual for us )

I still don't understand if your answer to "So morality is just relative?" is yes or no.

We have both agreed that sometimes depending on the circumstances incest may not be immoral and indeed may even be moral.

How is that different from saying that morals are therefore relative and not absolute?

It is different because MA believe that moral are relative to the individual, they equate this to circumstances.

I equate circumstances to physical properties in the environment being different.

Gravity makes the body of a human behave differently in the Moon than the Earth, but bodies behave exactly the same on earth.

I don't know if I'm getting across. I'm trying to explain it.

Relative is a relative term. Maybe if I use something from the world of statistics, economics. etc. There is a term in latin that is used to mean "if all other variables are kept constant" then this will always be the result.

That is where the absolute part of morality comes from.

So, with confidence, I can say that adultery is immoral regardless if the couple are in an open or closed relationship. It is immoral regardless they agree or consent to the action.

This is a fundamental difference between the MA view and the Christian view. If I were a MA, there should be no reason why I would believe that consentual adultery is immoral.

Loki wrote:
As best I can tell, you are really asserting only one unchanging "principle" - that a specific cause will generate a specific effect. If we repeat the cause exactly, we repeat the effect exactly. If the details of the cause change, the details of the effect change.

I think the difference is the scope. Your "change" can be anything, including mindset. My change has to be huge (figuratively from the Earth to the Moon).

If incest occurs in manner 'x' (an immoral act), it will produce effect 'y' (a negative result). If we reproduce 'X' at some later time, we will also get 'Y' again. However, if we change 'X' slightly, then 'Y' will change slightly. If we change 'X' sufficiently, then incest occuring in manner 'X+z' becomes moral (!), and the effect 'Y+z' becomes neutral, or even positive.

And you do include the word SLIGHTLY in your explanation. I hope you see the difference.

I fail to see how this differs in any significant way from my own opinions...I guess we agree?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just explaining that the view is opposite.

[Loki]

Christan,

I think the difference is the scope.
Well, I'd still see that as we have agreed on the basic framework, but are disagreeing on the details. In other words, we both think morals are relative, but you think they are relative over a samller range than I do. This surprises me, and appears to contradict some of your earlier statements. Perhasp I've misunderstood you from the beginning, and you are actually a closet humanist!

And you do include the word SLIGHTLY in your explanation.
I hope you grapsed my meaning in that paragraph - I was attmepting to explain that it appears to me that you believe that the "effects" of moral actions is a sliding scale from 'imoral with severe consequecnes' all the way up to "not immoral at all".

Perhaps I should aks for clarification! Is morality a scale, or a binary condition?

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I hope you grapsed my meaning in that paragraph - I was attmepting to explain that it appears to me that you believe that the "effects" of moral actions is a sliding scale from 'imoral with severe consequecnes' all the way up to "not immoral at all".

Perhaps I should aks for clarification! Is morality a scale, or a binary condition?

I believe it is a binary condition (good phrase, I like it).

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

I believe it is a binary condition
That doesn't seem consistent with what you have been saying.

And grace? Sliding scale, or binary? I've asked this several times now. Did I miss your answer?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
That doesn't seem consistent with what you have been saying.


Why?

And grace? Sliding scale, or binary? I've asked this several times now. Did I miss your answer?

Can you elaborate what you mean by grace. Do you mean this:

Ephesians 2 NIV
7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

If [moral principles] are not independent of human thought, then by definition, they can't be universal.I agree. But they can be universal among all humans, i.e., ancient peoples who never were exposed to Mosaic law would apply similar fundamental principles, and we would expect to see that reflected in their writings (which is indeed the case).
Why?
Perhaps I just haven't been able to grasp your argument. I still don't see how [morality as relative] and [morality as absolute] can be anything but mutually exclusive. You seem to be trying to make a case for both, and expecting us to flip between modes as you do (which seems to be as is necessary to support your position).

Can you elaborate what you mean by grace. Do you mean this:

"...it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..."
That's the stuff. Is that gift handed out in varying quantities, based on a merit system? Or not?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
I agree. But they can be universal among all humans

Why the distinction? What about other mammals or reptiles?

From the MA view, evolution is based on natural selection that is completely impersonal, voided of any planned direction.

Perhaps I just haven't been able to grasp your argument. I still don't see how [morality as relative] and [morality as absolute] can be anything but mutually exclusive.

Oh come on. How do you reconcile your physics? Einstein's Monkey paradox or the closing of the doors?

You seem to be trying to make a case for both, and expecting us to flip between modes as you do (which seems to be as is necessary to support your position).

Well, am I standing still or in motion. In relation to the receptionist, I'm standing still. In relation to the guy on the moon, I'm in motion.

That's the stuff. Is that gift handed out in varying quantities, based on a merit system? Or not?

Salvation is a gift. No merit system needed.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Why the distinction? What about other mammals or reptiles?If a species of reptile or an alien life form evolved sufficient cognitive abilities, I would expect them to discover the same universal principles of mathematics that we use, and the same universal moral principles as well. ...At least, I think so. I will admit that I have encountered arguments against this view that I also find somewhat compelling, and I reserve the right to change my position on this without further notice.

But (again) while that is an interesting puzzle, it really is a separate discussion. Let's try to stay focused here. Your claim that Mosaic (Hebrew) law is the standard for all mankind does not extend the scope beyond our species, and my main argument does not either. There are passages from the Bagivad-Gita, or the Upanishads, that match passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew almost verbatim (while predating that writing by many centuries).

Oh come on. How do you reconcile your physics? Einstein's Monkey paradox or the closing of the doors?
I don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Well, am I standing still or in motion. In relation to the receptionist, I'm standing still. In relation to the guy on the moon, I'm in motion.
I would say that motion is always relative, whether that fact is obvious from a particular frame of reference or not -- limiting one's observation to a particular frame does not make motion absolute.

Salvation is a gift. No merit system neededThe sole requirement being 'belief'. So grace is absolute; no one is any more -- or any less -- saved than anyone else. Returning then to my original question, what heavenly consequences does the Christian adulterer face, beyond the earthly consequences which both he and the atheist adulterer face?

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
If a species of reptile or an alien life form evolved sufficient cognitive abilities, I would expect them to discover the same universal principles of mathematics that we use, and the same universal moral principles as well. ...At least, I think so. I will admit that I have encountered arguments against this view that I also find somewhat compelling, and I reserve the right to change my position on this without further notice.

Ok, we wont get into this here.


But (again) while that is an interesting puzzle, it really is a separate discussion. Let's try to stay focused here. Your claim that Mosaic (Hebrew) law is the standard for all mankind does not extend the scope beyond our species, and my main argument does not either. There are passages from the Bagivad-Gita, or the Upanishads, that match passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew almost verbatim (while predating that writing by many centuries).

You don't want to get into the universal principle discussions and you do want to get into an archealogical one? That would be way off topic.

I don't have the first clue what you are talking about.


I couldn't find the monkey paradox but I did find examples of others (including the opening of the doors)

Paradoxes (http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/paradoxes.html)

I would say that motion is always relative, whether that fact is obvious from a particular frame of reference or not -- limiting one's observation to a particular frame does not make motion absolute.

Ok, but the speed if light is absolute. How do you solve that?

My point is simple, things can be absolute and still have a quality of relativity without losing its fundamental absolute quality.

Adultery is immoral (that is an absolute statement)

The sole requirement being 'belief'. So grace is absolute; no one is any more -- or any less -- saved than anyone else. Returning then to my original question, what heavenly consequences does the Christian adulterer face, beyond the earthly consequences which both he and the atheist adulterer face?

The sole requirement is acceptance. Yes, grace is absolute.

The Christian adulterer (as the passage I presented explains) will have less treasures in heaven. That will be the consequence.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

You don't want to get into the universal principle discussions and you do want to get into an archealogical one? That would be way off topic.
On page 1, you said this:

"My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not."

Which I take to mean that we should reject our own moral instincts in favor of an external set of standards (preferably those set forth in Hebrew law). My position is that this 'outside standard' is derived from a set of internal moral standards with which every human comes factory-equipped. That there is so much commonality in the standards of various ancient peoples supports this, as does Romans 2:15, which says:

Which show the work of the law written in their [the Gentiles] hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another.
My point is simple, things can be absolute and still have a quality of relativity without losing its fundamental absolute quality
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
The Christian adulterer (as the passage I presented explains) will have less treasures in heaven. That will be the consequence.
So it is a merit system, and grace is distributed in varying amounts. There is a difference between a paradox and an outright contradiction.

As far as the site you linked...Autodynamics? I never heard of that before, but on a casual look, it appears to be pure, unmitigated crap. I hope you aren't relying too much on sources like that.

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:

On page 1, you said this:

"My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not."

Which I take to mean that we should reject our own moral instincts in favor of an external set of standards (preferably those set forth in Hebrew law).

Ok, yes but I didn't imply Hebrew law. The point was that external standards are the only effective for MA.

My position is that this 'outside standard' is derived from a set of internal moral standards with which every human comes factory-equipped. That there is so much commonality in the standards of various ancient peoples supports this, as does Romans 2:15, which says:

Which show the work of the law written in their [the Gentiles] hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another.


How do you know your assumption is correct. For the MA position, it would be extremely difficult to accept the notion that humans come factory-equipped. I don't think that position can be held with a MA reference.

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

:D

So it is a merit system, and grace is distributed in varying amounts.

No, no. We are confusing things here. Grace is only related to going or not going to heaven. The merit system you are thinking about has nothing to do with the doctrine of grace.

Grace is not distributed in various amounts. Either you go to heaven or you don't. Now, the subset of those that go to heaven get distribution of treasures. But that has nothing to do with th doctrine of grace.

There is a difference between a paradox and an outright contradiction.

Actually a paradox is a contradiction by definition. The special quality of this particular contradiction (what qualifies it as paradox) is that it is both at the same time.

As far as the site you linked...Autodynamics? I never heard of that before, but on a casual look, it appears to be pure, unmitigated crap. I hope you aren't relying too much on sources like that.

I took a physics course in college and I have read some material on the subject. I assure you it is not crap.

Let me explain why the paradox exists. The paradox is create because the speed of light is constant.

Ok, an example. Suppose you are riding your car at 40 Km/h and from the car, you throw a ball forward at 20 km/h. From your point of reference, what is the speed of the ball going forward? That should be 20 km/h.

Now, what is the speed of the ball from the reference of someone on the side of the road? It should be 60 km/h.

Ok, here is the interesting part.

Suppose you are not traveling at 40 km/h but at the speed of light (SOL). And now, you throw a ball at 20 km/h. What is the speed of the ball from your perspective? It should be 20 km/h.

Now this time, what is the speed of the ball from the reference of someone on the side of the road? It should be the SOL+20 km/h. It is not. From the the guy on the side of the road, he still sees the ball traveling at the SOL.

This creates contradictins (paradoxes) all over the place. The site I posted are two examples.