Morality

[Skashion]

But that means that a society like Nazi Germany that those aren't morally wrong

Nazi Germany thought that it was Morally right to exterminate the Jews....

#

God was with the Nazis. Didn't you know that? Oh, and it was the Catholic Centre Party that gave Hitler the votes he needed to pass the Enabling Act, and the Vatican then signed the Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany. I know you're not a Catholic but you're a fellow Christian and God botherer. They enabled Hitler, so forgive me if I won't take a moral lecture on Nazi Germany from the Christians who helped him on his way.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

But that means that a society like Nazi Germany that those aren't morally wrong

Nazi Germany thought that it was Morally right to exterminate the Jews....

#

God was with the Nazis. Didn't you know that? Oh, and it was the Catholic Centre Party that gave Hitler the votes he needed to pass the Enabling Act, and the Vatican then signed the Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany. I know you're not a Catholic but you're a fellow Christian and God botherer. They enabled Hitler, so forgive me if I won't take a moral lecture on Nazi Germany from the Christians who helped him on his way.

Exactly and if we follow that to the logical conclusion then the Holocaust wasn't just claimed to have been sanctioned by God, it was sanctioned by God. The old testament contains numerous passages of how the Israelites slaughtered other inhabitants of that part of the world for not bowing down to God. The Jews in rejecting Jesus became the hunted. The religious totalitarianism has continued throughout the ages; the Gnostics, the Crusade against Eastern Christianity, the reformation and the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Disobeying the Church is also disobeying God, see the excommunication of the Jesuits for opposing the enslavement of Amerindian people.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

Empathy is the basis of morality.
If you read the bible then many of the things we find morally wrong as a society, aren't considered such in the so called good book.
The ten commandments are very clear when it comes to your Gods vanity. Shockingly absent is a commandment against rape, amongst other things.

If you need a higher power to tell you something is morally wrong. And you need the fear of hell not to commit atrocities, then you don't possess those morals. Therefore you have no right to claim where we get morals from.
You would also think that Britain was a place of rape and torture and murder before Xtianity arrived. It wasn't.

 

[blueish swede]

This is my whole point, if there IS NO GOD, THEN THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALS TO CLAIM ...

Rape is not objectively wrong
Love is not objectively right
Pedophilia and sex with children is not objectively wrong
Protecting your family is not objectively right.

You are missing the point. You have made an assumption that the various social mores that you have collected together under the banner of morality have a common source. You have offered no evidence to support your assumption. There is no evidence that supports your assumption.

However, by offering different examples in your argument and, as above, listing these unrelated areas together you hope to have this unsupported claim accepted without objection. You do this so that, after the traditional BM 20 pages, 4 warnings 1 ban and a piccie of a scantily clad lass, announce to the world that the common source is...






wait for it...






...God!

Show that the individual areas you claim constitute morality have a common origin and are not the sporadic result of a complex ecosystem subject to the laws of evolution. Without this proof your argument has no foundation.
It is built on sand ;)

 

[mammutly]

Morality is a personal concept linked to shared values. At a national level, its' expression becomes dependent on politicians and therefore it it barely exists.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Empathy is the basis of morality.
If you read the bible then many of the things we find morally wrong as a society, aren't considered such in the so called good book.
The ten commandments are very clear when it comes to your Gods vanity. Shockingly absent is a commandment against rape, amongst other things.

If you need a higher power to tell you something is morally wrong. And you need the fear of hell not to commit atrocities, then you don't possess those morals. Therefore you have no right to claim where we get morals from.
You would also think that Britain was a place of rape and torture and murder before Xtianity arrived. It wasn't.

Spot on. I should have pointed out the importance of empathy in my psychopath point, that is why they lack morals because they lack full empathetic thought. Mark your lack of smell point is a false analogy. Also my video had a man with the brain pattern of a psychopath but who had a sense of morality. Why is that the case?- because of social conditioning and a good upbringing.

I agree with blueish swede as well, if God is the source of your objective morality prove that he exists. Also the use of a higher being does not remove subjectivity because that is also highly subjective. Which God is real? what is God? Can men become Gods? Can Gods Become men? How many Gods are there? You cannot prove that a God I just made up is less real than all of the other Gods before him.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Good debate so far

anyway ...



It seems that you keep sidesteping my questions and points. so I am going to keep this very simple.....

at this stage the Bible, what sort of God, proof of Gods existence....ARE NOT PART OF THE ARGUMENT

this argument is...are morals absolute? That's it. delving into the Catholic Church, Old Testament, Ten Commandments is your way of losing the argument and frantically finding a way out of answering my points

I am more than happy to move on to these areas , simply put....

If morals are a result of social conditioning how can you then claim we are WRONG (as an example ) ... for invading Iraq, since as some of you have put it yourself " we are the product of our own morals", your world is natural and natural only, no ultimate meaning, no ultimate values.....that IS YOUR WORLDVIEW

when it is convenient you jump out of your worldview by claiming an absolute right
, do as you like as long as it doesn't hurt others ... this to you is an absolute right.

- Contradiction: life has no absolute right or wrongs but "do as you like as long as it doesn't harm others" is an absolute right

- You cannot claim absolute morals AND be a naturalist take your pick

Once you are a Naturalist and agree never to claim an absolute right we are free to move on to Christian ethics and Evidence leading to God but your worldview is confused and self contradictory.....a common problem for an Athiestic worldview to one I cannot live by....

Empathy is a human condition that is distinct from morals, I may have empathy for my friend but still overcome that sensation to steal from him for financial gain.... I have empathy but I have stolen from him.....happens around the world all the time

You see the problem....the situation above does not remove the problem of an absolute right or wrong despite me having empathy....the result is still wrong...or right?

the points I have outlined in the first paragraphs are simply examples, the main point of this is -

if there IS NO GOD, THEN THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALS TO CLAIM....


Well surely that is just what you believe.....so don't claim them....

Yes I claim a common source, yes I believe that there are absolute moral right and wrongs which is why I can safely live within my own worldview and stand for what is right.

You on the other hand claim a world that morals are based on social conditioning without a common source and then as soon as the opportunity presents itself like in a bar instantly claim that invading Iraq is....wait for it....

...WRONG!?!?

 

[The Flash]

Christian ethics

A fine oxymoron....

 

[Bigga]

Interesting debate.

Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?

I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.

Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.

 

[Goo]

Interesting debate.

Here's my question; what is so difficult to answer about Vic's question that one has to tack religion to it?

I am not an atheist and nor am I religious, so this intrigues me that atheists cannot answer a question without defaulting to a safe ground.

Does the question have no validity? If so, explain on its own merit.

Not sure I understand you fully here, Bigga. As a atheist myself, I can draw upon perfectly good reasoning (scientific and Darwinian) as to why morals, and behavior which suggest morals, exist.

I haven't seen any evidence of a atheistic answer defaulting to a safe ground.

Also interested in your "not religious but not atheist" comment. Just to clarify I assume you're saying you're an agnostic? Everyone who isn't a believer is an agnostic in reality, but the term has problems as it suggest the agnostic is 50-50 over the existence of a God. I am 99.9 recurring per cent sure a God doesn't exist. While technically that makes me an agnostic, I use the term atheist as it gives a more accurate portrayal as to where I stand. Is this you? Or do you mean something else?

Funnily enough Markt85's Vicar brother is also 99.9 recurring per cent atheist as well. He only believes in one God of the thousands and thousands that have been created. So while he's not quite as atheistic as me, he's very very close.