Morality

[Lucky Toma]

Been away from here for awhile so need a catch-up.

So Mark has quit gambling and eaten a whole pack of fruitloops then?

 

[Bigga]

"Morality" evolves.

Probably the most interesting two words in most of this thread. I find it interesting that atheists are fine with this free flowing concept, but cannot attribute the same concept to the Bible, where a type of existence was captured within written words.

'Why is that this could slaughter that and they do whatever to the other?' is often the argument, but fail to recognise and implement the two words quoted to a time that existed to now.

'Evolution' is the word of the day, is it not? Is this simply exclusive to atheists? The moral compass, as a society, has shifted hugely since the days of Abraham, but the core of its intention(the positive roots) must still remain as it has entwined in today's compass, mixed in with the natural urge of Man.

You cannot claim a moral 'progress' in one part of society. It's impossible for evolution on all scale not to impact everything.

Just a morning thought.

It doesn't work when religion itself doesn't include evolution as one of its principles and said important figures don't come back 2,000 years later and go "Actually we forgot to mention shit changes".

This misses the mark of what I said, completely.

 

[stonerblue]

I am the source of my morality.....I want to kill little children

You are the source of your morality.....you want to protect little children

Who is right?

Neither since we are both the source of our morality....

If in your worldview you have explained fully the source or origins of your morality, that we are anatomically in control of our own bodies then right and wrong is simply anatomic/brain matter, blood

Morality is as evident as a God, neither is found in a test tube.

The Vicar

Ooh...., freaky post count.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Probably the most interesting two words in most of this thread. I find it interesting that atheists are fine with this free flowing concept, but cannot attribute the same concept to the Bible, where a type of existence was captured within written words.

'Why is that this could slaughter that and they do whatever to the other?' is often the argument, but fail to recognise and implement the two words quoted to a time that existed to now.

'Evolution' is the word of the day, is it not? Is this simply exclusive to atheists? The moral compass, as a society, has shifted hugely since the days of Abraham, but the core of its intention(the positive roots) must still remain as it has entwined in today's compass, mixed in with the natural urge of Man.

You cannot claim a moral 'progress' in one part of society. It's impossible for evolution on all scale not to impact everything.

Just a morning thought.

It doesn't work when religion itself doesn't include evolution as one of its principles and said important figures don't come back 2,000 years later and go "Actually we forgot to mention shit changes".

This misses the mark of what I said, completely.

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

 

[Bigga]

It doesn't work when religion itself doesn't include evolution as one of its principles and said important figures don't come back 2,000 years later and go "Actually we forgot to mention shit changes".

This misses the mark of what I said, completely.

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

 

[BlueHammer85]

You do not understand evolution, unfortunately. Survival of the fittest means survival of those that are best suited - that have the best fit - to the prevailing conditions. It is a less common meaning of the word today that confuses a lot of people. For example it may mean those who have a balance of greed and empathy that allows them to progress successfully in a society without being an underdog or attracting too much revulsion. Such an individual may not necessarily have the ability to run very fast or very far but still increase their chance of having offspring that survive to maturity.

Also if you re-read your post you will see that you answer many of your own objections.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. As I implied earlier in the thread, the concept of morality is merely a construct that is the result of prevailing social conditions. "Morality" evolves.

That is one hell of a theory - plus species evolve over MILLIONS of years, humans have Been on this earth for 5 million years On a time span of 4 BILLION, homo sapiens are but a second on the clock of evolution, there is no way you can even closely make that assumption, we won't even know if that's true for millions of years to come, not to mention the fact that evolution has always been based on the stronger species gaining the upper hand through whats considered immoral both physically or mentally for 9/10ths of that time span

I am glad that you admit morals have evolved, but you must now take the stance that morals are simply that..... a way of bettering our chances of evolving(theoretical at best)....they are NOT absolute

REMEMBER

One thing you cannot do EVER however from now on is state an absolute moral right...

If you say for example we are WRONG for invading Iraq...know that you have come to that reasoning as a result of evolving social conditions, no more!

if I think the opposite to you that is the result of my social conditions

Right and wrong simply do not fit in here....even though they are a result of evolution they become relative....in other words, right and wrong are indifferent

No more claiming an absolute ....they do not exist in the evolving world of naturalism

Bigga, do you agree with the above then ?

 

[Bigga]

You do not understand evolution, unfortunately. Survival of the fittest means survival of those that are best suited - that have the best fit - to the prevailing conditions. It is a less common meaning of the word today that confuses a lot of people. For example it may mean those who have a balance of greed and empathy that allows them to progress successfully in a society without being an underdog or attracting too much revulsion. Such an individual may not necessarily have the ability to run very fast or very far but still increase their chance of having offspring that survive to maturity.

Also if you re-read your post you will see that you answer many of your own objections.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. As I implied earlier in the thread, the concept of morality is merely a construct that is the result of prevailing social conditions. "Morality" evolves.

That is one hell of a theory - plus species evolve over MILLIONS of years, humans have Been on this earth for 5 million years On a time span of 4 BILLION, homo sapiens are but a second on the clock of evolution, there is no way you can even closely make that assumption, we won't even know if that's true for millions of years to come, not to mention the fact that evolution has always been based on the stronger species gaining the upper hand through whats considered immoral both physically or mentally for 9/10ths of that time span

I am glad that you admit morals have evolved, but you must now take the stance that morals are simply that..... a way of bettering our chances of evolving(theoretical at best)....they are NOT absolute

REMEMBER

One thing you cannot do EVER however from now on is state an absolute moral right...

If you say for example we are WRONG for invading Iraq...know that you have come to that reasoning as a result of evolving social conditions, no more!

if I think the opposite to you that is the result of my social conditions

Right and wrong simply do not fit in here....even though they are a result of evolution they become relative....in other words, right and wrong are indifferent

No more claiming an absolute ....they do not exist in the evolving world of naturalism

Bigga, do you agree with the above then ?

To some degree, yes I do, but these are not simple parameters we operate in. We are pretty much the conjoining of two entities; we return to matter, yet we are conscious. We are a living paradox, are we not?

The natural beast in us wants to survive, so we kill, eat and procreate. The consciousness in us guides the morality of what we do to each other and in our surroundings. Are we not just suppressing natural instinct? Are we right to?

The taking of a beast's life erases the question of whether they are conscious for our own survival. Where is the morality then? If you choose not to eat a former living being, then you deny yourself natural supplements for your body, but evolve at the same time...

LOL!! I've just realised my fingers are typing again, but I shall not erase it, even though I went off on a tangent!!

It raises one question, though. How does all this link?

There must a common denominator.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

This misses the mark of what I said, completely.

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

 

[Bigga]

it doesn't, you just haven't grasped how religion should work.

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Wow.

Okay, are religion and society two separate things? If so, how would religion spread its message? If religion needs society to spread and society is susceptible to an evolving morality, how does an evolving morality not change a religious point of view at some point?

Evolution effects everything. It just takes time.

The whole point of religion is it is meant to be above that, from a higher power and therefore any message from God would be aware of all these details and therefore reflect what you said.

It doesn't, so therefore we can conclude religion is a man made concept and completely useless and irrelevant in modern times.

You are completely mistaken and now I understand why you have such aversion. If you are casting derision on religion from an improper viewpoint, then nothing can shake your belief because of that standpoint. But, even I know this much:

According to Biblicist teachings God gave Man 'free will'. So this extends to the right to believe in Him or not as well as the things he does towards his surroundings.

What it also does, is allow for the evolving of morality through society's growth over a period of time. This expansion changes how religion reflects upon itself, from conception to now and beyond. Evolving takes time.

Does it not...?

Free will then proceed to tell everybody what they can and can't do if they don't want to be punished, rules and punishments that haven't evolved or changed in 2,000 years.

Religion evolving takes Jesus coming back and saying "Sorry guys, I didn't clear this up back then", and it isn't going to happen. For religion to work it has to be ahead of the curve, and it's so far behind that the conclusion is that it is completely devoid of any worth apart from making false promises that people cling to because they're scared of their heart stopping.