Page 14 of 173 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464114 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 1722

Thread: Atheism And Moral Progress

  1. #131
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,841
    Amen (Given)
    5494
    Amen (Received)
    23657
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Don't think that it isn't noticed that instead of answering the question Sparko, you just ignore it and ask another question.

    No #2 doesn't contradict #1. How you came to that conclusion I have no idea. Perhaps you could explain the contradiction that you see?


    See above. Now how about just answering the question. Do you agree that adherence to the moral "thou shalt not steal" is in the best interests of human society?
    I did tell you how they contradicted each other.

    #1 says that morals don't depend on what other people think or believe. #2 says that they are determined by what people think and believe (sound reasoning and logic)

    I can't answer your other questions until you settle on a consistent theory of morality, not some hodgepodge of conflicting statements.

  2. #132
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,232
    Amen (Given)
    2140
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Except my whole model for a more harmonious and peaceful society depends on us first loving and obeying God. And such a society is merely the byproduct of our love for God. Knowing and loving God is the paramount consideration, societal harmony is a secondary consideration.
    You're obfuscating seer. Secondary or not, why does the adherence to morals in and of themselves make for a more harmonious and peaceful society?

  3. #133
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,232
    Amen (Given)
    2140
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I did tell you how they contradicted each other.

    #1 says that morals don't depend on what other people think or believe. #2 says that they are determined by what people think and believe (sound reasoning and logic)
    What is good for, or what is in the best interests of society, is not dependent upon what people believe, though what people believe may or may not be in agreement with what is good for, or what is in the best interests of society. That people can either be in error or in agreement with facts does not contradict the facts themselves.
    I can't answer your other questions until you settle on a consistent theory of morality, not some hodgepodge of conflicting statements.
    Yes you can answer if you want to, I can only assume that you refuse to answer because you know the answer destroys your argument regarding the necessity of the existence of objective divine moral laws.

  4. #134
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,208
    Amen (Given)
    2095
    Amen (Received)
    5657
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You're obfuscating seer. Secondary or not, why does the adherence to morals in and of themselves make for a more harmonious and peaceful society?
    No way I'm obfuscating Jim, you can't have harmony without common moral beliefs, and you can't have common moral beliefs without an objective source and authority for those beliefs. As long as you have different moral opinions about things like gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity, etc.. the role of government, differing religions or political theories you will have disharmony.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  5. #135
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,841
    Amen (Given)
    5494
    Amen (Received)
    23657
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    What is good for, or what is in the best interests of society, is not dependent upon what people believe, though what people believe may or may not be in agreement with what is good for, or what is in the best interests of society. That people can either be in error or in agreement with facts does not contradict the facts themselves.
    So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe? Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right? And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe? What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.


    Yes you can answer if you want to, I can only assume that you refuse to answer because you know the answer destroys your argument regarding the necessity of the existence of objective divine moral laws.
    I can't answer because 1. Your view of morality doesn't make any sense. 2. Under your theory of morality it doesn't matter what I believe anyway and 3. I forgot what you even asked me.

  6. #136
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,492
    Amen (Given)
    1737
    Amen (Received)
    1036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe? Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right? And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe? What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.
    Morality is not based on any rational consensus of agreement. This sound like laws in a democracy where people make laws that are based on the foundation of morality of that culture. Morality is more fundamental in human behavior and evolves based on the needs to survive as a family and community. There is no individual determination of belief or what is right or wrong in the morality of a culture unless one chooses to break the moral codes to a degree that they get punished. If the morals are not followed by most in a culture the family and community do not survive. Minor infractions of morality are tolerated as long as it does not threaten the survival of the community.

    In my previous response concerning 'abortion.' I rely on the Divine guidance of the spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith, and not the variable nature of morality for definitive guidance. The evidence indicates that abortion one way or another as a moral value does not contribute to the survival of the human species.

    I consider Divine Laws and guidance not specifically related to the morality of cultures, but the morals of a culture have a more positive influence on the harmony, peace and success of the family and community when based on Spiritual Laws and Guidance.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-07-2018 at 11:25 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #137
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,841
    Amen (Given)
    5494
    Amen (Received)
    23657
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Morality is not based on any rational consensus of agreement. This sound like laws in a democracy where people make laws that are based on the foundation of morality of that culture. Morality is more fundamental in human behavior and evolves based on the needs to survive as a family and community. There is no individual determination of belief or what is right or wrong in the morality of a culture unless one chooses to break the moral codes to a degree that they get punished. If the morals are not followed by most in a culture the family and community do not survive. Minor infractions of morality are tolerated as long as it does not threaten the survival of the community.

    In my previous response concerning 'abortion.' I rely on the Divine guidance of the spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith, and not the variable nature of morality for definitive guidance. The evidence indicates that abortion one way or another as a moral value does not contribute to the survival of the human species.

    I consider Divine Laws and guidance not specifically related to the morality of cultures, but the morals of a culture have a more positive influence on the harmony, peace and success of the family and community when based on Spiritual Laws and Guidance.
    You seem to have a problem butting into conversations that don't include you. I don't care what you think about the matter at this point. I am trying to get JimL to clarify his view. He seems to hold contradictory views and I am wanting him to clear it up for me.

  8. #138
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,492
    Amen (Given)
    1737
    Amen (Received)
    1036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You seem to have a problem butting into conversations that don't include you. I don't care what you think about the matter at this point. I am trying to get JimL to clarify his view. He seems to hold contradictory views and I am wanting him to clear it up for me.
    At present this is an open forum, and not limited on who responds to what posts. As long as I respond coherently and ah . . . do not call people names, nor insult them.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  9. #139
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,232
    Amen (Given)
    2140
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    No way I'm obfuscating Jim, you can't have harmony without common moral beliefs, and you can't have common moral beliefs without an objective source and authority for those beliefs. As long as you have different moral opinions about things like gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity, etc.. the role of government, differing religions or political theories you will have disharmony.
    Oh but you are obfuscating, and you continue to do so. Like Sparko you continue to ignore answering the question that I asked you and instead you keep repeating to me what you believe. We already know what you believe.
    So, maybe now you can answer. Is adherence to the moral against theft beneficial to society or not? Even a simple yes or no answer would do at this point seer.

  10. #140
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,232
    Amen (Given)
    2140
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe?
    That's correct, for example, stealing from each other is not in the best interests of society whether you or anyone else agrees or not. You see, it has nothing to do with what any one individual believes.


    Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right?
    Correct again, good or bad behaviors are either in the best interests of society or they are not, regardless of what people believe.

    And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe?
    Most people with the attribute of sound reason will come to the same conclusion that certain behaviors, such as theft or murder are detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to themselves as a member thereof. But again, that fact isn't dependent upon peoples agreement.

    What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.
    It is not an objective standard in the sense you people think of an objective standard. There is no moral code from a vengeful deity out there, at least there is no need of one, what there is, is logic, sound reason, and the results of putting those attributes to use. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is a common sense behavior which is beneficial to you and to all of society, but as a moral it has no objective existence out there.



    I can't answer because 1. Your view of morality doesn't make any sense. 2. Under your theory of morality it doesn't matter what I believe anyway and 3. I forgot what you even asked me.
    Oh sure you can Sparko, I understand you don't want to answer, but you surely can.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •