Godless morality

[curiosityandthecat]

Someone define morality.

Ask, and ye shall receive. From the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard against which all other English dictionaries are set:

Code Select Expand

1. Ethical wisdom, knowledge of moral science. Obs.

 2. In pl. Moral qualities or endowments. Obs.

 3. a. Moral virtue; behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good.
  Occas. used in Theol. with reference to natural moral virtues as distinguished from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Cf. MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. humorous or ironic. A person who habitually assumes an air of virtue. Also used as a mock title with possessive adjective. Obs.

 4. a. Moral discourse or instruction; a moral lesson or exhortation. Also: the action or an act of moralizing.

     b. A moral of a fable, event, etc.; the moral interpretation or sense of a text or passage. Obs.

     c. Moral truth or significance. Obs. rare.

 5. a. A literary or artistic work expounding or inculcating a moral lesson; {dag}a moralizing commentary, a moral allegory (obs.). Now rare.

    b. = morality play n. at Compounds 1.

 6. a. Conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral law; moral goodness or rightness.

     b. Theol. The property of certain enactments of the Mosaic Law by which they belong to the moral (as opposed to ceremonial, etc.) law and therefore retain their validity under the Christian dispensation. Cf. MORAL adj. 5a. Obs.

    c. The quality or fact of being morally right or wrong; the goodness or badness of an action. Cf. MORAL adj. 1b.

  7. a. The branch of knowledge concerned with right and wrong conduct, duty, responsibility, etc.; moral philosophy, ethics.

    b. In pl. Points of ethics; moral principles or rules.

    c. A particular moral system or outlook; moral thought or conduct in relation to a particular form of activity.

    d. The ethical aspect of a question. rare.
Oh, and as it's improper to define a word using a variation of the word itself, here's the definition of the adjective moral:

[spoiler:23k3nvxb]

Code Select Expand

   1. a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
  Recorded earliest in MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

    c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. Cf. sense 2c.

    d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.

    e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.

    2. a. Of a literary work, an artistic or dramatic representation, etc.: dealing with the rightness and wrongness of conduct; intended to teach morality or convey a moral; (hence also) having a beneficial moral effect, edifying. In early use also: {dag}allegorical, emblematical (obs.).

    {dag}b. Of a person, esp. a writer: expounding moral precepts (in early use applied to allegorists). Also in extended use. Obs.

    c. Treating of or concerned with the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study.

    d. Designating or relating to an interpretation of a biblical passage which treats the events described as typifying something in the life of the reader; = TROPOLOGICAL adj. 2. Later also in extended use.
  In quot. 1529 used adverbially.

    3. a. Of, relating to, or concerned with the morals or morality of a person or group of people.

    b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

    c. Modifying a noun: having those qualities (i.e. those of the noun) metaphorically in respect of moral character or condition.

    d. Designating the incidental effect of an action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, etc. Cf. sense 8.

    4. a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

    {dag}b. spec. Characterized by virtues other than specifically religious ones. See MORAL VIRTUE n. Obs.

    c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct; showing sexual morality. Freq. in moral restraint.

    5. a. Designating the body of requirements to which an action must conform in order to be right or virtuous; (also) designating a particular requirement of this kind. Freq. in moral law.
  When applied to laws often contrasted with ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority (cf. NATURAL LAW n.). In early use chiefly applied to those parts of the Mosaic Law which enunciate moral rather than ceremonial or juridical precepts and principles.

    b. Of a right, obligation, responsibility, etc.: founded on moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Freq. contrasted with legal.

    {dag}6. Of or relating to manners and customs. Obs.

    7. Of evidence, argument, etc.: based on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of a particular person's character; probable rather than demonstrative, sufficient to justify practical certainty. Of a belief: held as practically certain. Freq. in moral certainty n. a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; a practical certainty on the basis of moral evidence.
  The distinction between different degrees of certainty is made by Aristotle, who points out that moral philosophy cannot be discussed with the same insistence on proof as mathematics (Nicomachaean Ethics 1094 b13), and is taken up in scholastic thought, e.g. by St Thomas Aquinas, who argues that a degree of certainty less than the highest is adequate for the conduct of human affairs (Summa Theologica 1a 2ae. 96, 1). Although post-classical Latin moralis, moraliter have the sense ‘in or according to common usage’ as early as the 11th cent., they do not usually seem to be used of certainty in medieval authors. However, by the end of the 16th cent., if not earlier, the bases for assent to a truth could be classified as metaphysica, physica, or moralia, as they are by Francisco Suárez SJ (Metaphysicae Disputationes 29, 3, 34-6), and post-classical Latin certitudo moralis is opposed to certitudo absoluta a1626 (A. Gazet, in Cassian's Collations xx. vii, in Cassian's Opera Omnia). Descartes uses Fr. moralement impossible to refer to a morally certain but not strictly demonstrable impossibility in the Discours de la Methode (1637), and refers to the arguments of the Principia as moraliter certa in the Latin text of 1644 (iv. §205), using French certitude morale at the corresponding point in the French text of 1647. From the mid 17th cent. onwards, the concept of moral certainty was applied to evidence in law and natural science as well as religion, and was defined with various degrees of precision, e.g. as a probability of at least 0.999 in Jakob Bernouilli's Ars Conjectandi (1713).

    {dag}8. Of or relating to morale. Obs. rare.[/spoiler:23k3nvxb]

[Martian]

Someone define morality.

Ask, and ye shall receive. From the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard against which all other English dictionaries are set:

Code Select Expand

1. Ethical wisdom, knowledge of moral science. Obs.

 2. In pl. Moral qualities or endowments. Obs.

 3. a. Moral virtue; behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good.
  Occas. used in Theol. with reference to natural moral virtues as distinguished from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Cf. MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. humorous or ironic. A person who habitually assumes an air of virtue. Also used as a mock title with possessive adjective. Obs.

 4. a. Moral discourse or instruction; a moral lesson or exhortation. Also: the action or an act of moralizing.

     b. A moral of a fable, event, etc.; the moral interpretation or sense of a text or passage. Obs.

     c. Moral truth or significance. Obs. rare.

 5. a. A literary or artistic work expounding or inculcating a moral lesson; {dag}a moralizing commentary, a moral allegory (obs.). Now rare.

    b. = morality play n. at Compounds 1.

 6. a. Conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral law; moral goodness or rightness.

     b. Theol. The property of certain enactments of the Mosaic Law by which they belong to the moral (as opposed to ceremonial, etc.) law and therefore retain their validity under the Christian dispensation. Cf. MORAL adj. 5a. Obs.

    c. The quality or fact of being morally right or wrong; the goodness or badness of an action. Cf. MORAL adj. 1b.

  7. a. The branch of knowledge concerned with right and wrong conduct, duty, responsibility, etc.; moral philosophy, ethics.

    b. In pl. Points of ethics; moral principles or rules.

    c. A particular moral system or outlook; moral thought or conduct in relation to a particular form of activity.

    d. The ethical aspect of a question. rare.
Oh, and as it's improper to define a word using a variation of the word itself, here's the definition of the adjective moral:

[spoiler:16d63gvo]

Code Select Expand

   1. a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
  Recorded earliest in MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

    c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. Cf. sense 2c.

    d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.

    e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.

    2. a. Of a literary work, an artistic or dramatic representation, etc.: dealing with the rightness and wrongness of conduct; intended to teach morality or convey a moral; (hence also) having a beneficial moral effect, edifying. In early use also: {dag}allegorical, emblematical (obs.).

    {dag}b. Of a person, esp. a writer: expounding moral precepts (in early use applied to allegorists). Also in extended use. Obs.

    c. Treating of or concerned with the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study.

    d. Designating or relating to an interpretation of a biblical passage which treats the events described as typifying something in the life of the reader; = TROPOLOGICAL adj. 2. Later also in extended use.
  In quot. 1529 used adverbially.

    3. a. Of, relating to, or concerned with the morals or morality of a person or group of people.

    b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

    c. Modifying a noun: having those qualities (i.e. those of the noun) metaphorically in respect of moral character or condition.

    d. Designating the incidental effect of an action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, etc. Cf. sense 8.

    4. a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

    {dag}b. spec. Characterized by virtues other than specifically religious ones. See MORAL VIRTUE n. Obs.

    c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct; showing sexual morality. Freq. in moral restraint.

    5. a. Designating the body of requirements to which an action must conform in order to be right or virtuous; (also) designating a particular requirement of this kind. Freq. in moral law.
  When applied to laws often contrasted with ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority (cf. NATURAL LAW n.). In early use chiefly applied to those parts of the Mosaic Law which enunciate moral rather than ceremonial or juridical precepts and principles.

    b. Of a right, obligation, responsibility, etc.: founded on moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Freq. contrasted with legal.

    {dag}6. Of or relating to manners and customs. Obs.

    7. Of evidence, argument, etc.: based on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of a particular person's character; probable rather than demonstrative, sufficient to justify practical certainty. Of a belief: held as practically certain. Freq. in moral certainty n. a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; a practical certainty on the basis of moral evidence.
  The distinction between different degrees of certainty is made by Aristotle, who points out that moral philosophy cannot be discussed with the same insistence on proof as mathematics (Nicomachaean Ethics 1094 b13), and is taken up in scholastic thought, e.g. by St Thomas Aquinas, who argues that a degree of certainty less than the highest is adequate for the conduct of human affairs (Summa Theologica 1a 2ae. 96, 1). Although post-classical Latin moralis, moraliter have the sense ‘in or according to common usage’ as early as the 11th cent., they do not usually seem to be used of certainty in medieval authors. However, by the end of the 16th cent., if not earlier, the bases for assent to a truth could be classified as metaphysica, physica, or moralia, as they are by Francisco Suárez SJ (Metaphysicae Disputationes 29, 3, 34-6), and post-classical Latin certitudo moralis is opposed to certitudo absoluta a1626 (A. Gazet, in Cassian's Collations xx. vii, in Cassian's Opera Omnia). Descartes uses Fr. moralement impossible to refer to a morally certain but not strictly demonstrable impossibility in the Discours de la Methode (1637), and refers to the arguments of the Principia as moraliter certa in the Latin text of 1644 (iv. §205), using French certitude morale at the corresponding point in the French text of 1647. From the mid 17th cent. onwards, the concept of moral certainty was applied to evidence in law and natural science as well as religion, and was defined with various degrees of precision, e.g. as a probability of at least 0.999 in Jakob Bernouilli's Ars Conjectandi (1713).

    {dag}8. Of or relating to morale. Obs. rare.[/spoiler:16d63gvo]

   So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

[curiosityandthecat]

 So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

The connotation of the word morality is different for different people. Sure, there's the dictionary definition, but the definitions I gave are cold and clinical. When most people think of the word morality, I think, they're referring to what makes us human, what separates us from the animals, or even from one another. For some, morality is just treating others with respect; for others, it's part-and-parcel with their religion and cannot be separated from it. That is where you get those who believe that atheists cannot be ethical, as to be without God is to be without a reason to be "good." As Katharena Eiermann writes in her analysis of Dostoevsky, "...if there is no God, everything is permitted."

Imagine that. I can scarcely do it. I find it next to impossible to place myself in that mentality, whereby the removal of one aspect of my life would bring the rest of society crashing down around me (at least, to me). It's a frightening prospect, hence why I can understand why religious folk can be so mistrusting and wary of atheists: we represent their greatest fear.

[Martian]

 So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

The connotation of the word morality is different for different people. Sure, there's the dictionary definition, but the definitions I gave are cold and clinical. When most people think of the word morality, I think, they're referring to what makes us human, what separates us from the animals, or even from one another. For some, morality is just treating others with respect; for others, it's part-and-parcel with their religion and cannot be separated from it. That is where you get those who believe that atheists cannot be ethical, as to be without God is to be without a reason to be "good."

I find it very unproductive to discuss symbols based on the way they make you feel. Where can you get by the emotional reaction you get when observing it? This is made even more strange by the fact that the words we're talking about have no meaning to attribute feelings to (since it's not defined). If I asked you, "Do you want a lsjkdfjkd?" what would you feel? I would expect you to feel nothing towards that symbol, because it represents nothing. If I showed you a few 'lsjkdfjkd', then you could formulate your feelings relative to the definition (the actual objects). But as I said before, having an emotional response will not get us anywhere.

If a word doesn't have an actual "cold and clinical" definition, then it's not concept and can't be up for discussion as far as I can tell.

]As Katharena Eiermann writes in her analysis of Dostoevsky, "...if there is no God, everything is permitted."

I've always found that quote quite silly. Even if we assume God exists, things are still "permitted". Those things which are supposedly "not permitted" by God are happening in real life all the time, regardless.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Agreed.  You are a direct result, morally speaking, of the environment in which you were raised.  Similar to the fact that you are likely to be the same religion as your parents or culture in which you were born.  Morals are constantly evolving throughout the world.  For most they are directly linked to their religious belief of the time.  There are many factors manipulating morals and imposition is probably the main sculptor.  "What I know to be right and wrong is what everyone should believe".

Indeed so everything we "know" to be right or wrong is based on a (potentially) arbitrary set of circumstances within which we were brought up.

Using Christianity's views of morality (I was formerly a catholic), the OT morals were drastically different to the values in the NT.  Now look at how the morals have changed in the last 2000 years, or the last 100 years.  To be a 'moral' Christian in this day and age you must discard much of the teachings of the bible.  The same can be said for other religions.  In the OT era, you were doing your moral duty by killing infidels, blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc.  It's hard for most of us to imagine this was not only tolerated, but encouraged.  You are considered fundamentalist and immoral if you follow the OT or Qoran verbatim.

LOL ... some would think it's immoral to be a Catholic (I was brought up RC too).

Did you read that report about the Somalian woman stoned to death because she was pregnant outside of wedlock? Not only was she not 23 as the reports first said (she apparently was 13) but she had been raped and handed herself in to the authorities for what (I presume) she hope was some form of help.

Kyu

[DennisK]

LOL ... some would think it's immoral to be a Catholic (I was brought up RC too).

Did you read that report about the Somalian woman stoned to death because she was pregnant outside of wedlock? Not only was she not 23 as the reports first said (she apparently was 13) but she had been raped and handed herself in to the authorities for what (I presume) she hope was some form of help.

Kyu

I didn't hear of this, no.  Every time I find out what atrocities religion has done in the past and still continues to do, I have a new wave of nausea fall over me.  Thank god I'm an atheist.

Are there atheist organization who are actively fighting religious rhetoric and assemble for causes in the U.S.?  Every day I am becoming more and more angry (do I need to find a less 'happy' site?) at religion and their stranglehold on my country.  Without the power of guilt, how do we get atheists to congregate?

[Titan]

Okay, I'm back, this is going to be a LOOOONNGGGGG post. Please forgive me.

PipeBox

Now, you say you can't run the experiment because you would not truly be forgiven, that repentance is required, am I to take it that you need to be forgiven for individual transgressions and be self redeemed by your repentance? I'm having trouble wording this, but I was always told once you were saved, that was it, not that if you were in the act of sinning when you died that you weren't forgiven because you were neither sorry nor did you repent of it. In any case, you can still run the experiment courtesy of MetaForgiveness (TM). Here, I'll show you the steps:
[li]Know that you're going to ask for forgiveness after you commit the transgression.
[li]Run the experiment as stated.
[li]Pray for not only forgiveness of the transgression, but for forgiveness for knowing you were going to ask for forgiveness.
[li]Add another layer as required, until you are truly sorry for the whole thing.

Actually, Paul talks about this in Romans. Again, I'm using the Bible to prove internal doctrinal truth, not external realities.

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sinâ€" 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

 11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

 19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hopefully that answers you fully.

Is it nice? No. Does it work? I sure hope so, or we've found ourselves an unforgivable sin.

Not quite, let's pull out the good old dictionary.

reâ‹...pentâ‹...ance
â€, â€,/rɪˈpÉ›ntns, -ˈpÉ›ntÉ™ns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-pen-tns, -pen-tuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    deep sorrow, compunction, or contrition for a past sin, wrongdoing, or the like.
2.    regret for any past action.

Acts 3:19 states: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

No, how can you be actually repentant when you are planning on asking for forgiveness but still desire to live in sin? There are two choices from a Christian perspective: sin or Christ. There isn't a best of both worlds where you can choose both as I hope I've demonstrated.

As to altering your belief so you can't defend it, I wasn't attempting to be so crafty. In fact, I'm not sure where I'm asking you to make a fundamental claim about your beliefs which is irrevocable and greatly oversimplifies the situation (ALL literal or ALL figurative). If I've asked you to do the equivalent, I'm unable to see it. I'm trying to avoid logical fallacies here, not present them, so if you see any I wasn't clever enough to catch them.

Sorry, what I had said was confusing, I was merely retelling a previous discussion I had. I couldn't accept the terms of the hypothetical situation because in order to do so I would have to recant BASIC doctrinal philosophy. I want to be fair to you. This debate won't lead anywhere noble if we corrupt our own beliefs in order to take on small challenges.

Now the big question, the one that's meant to give pause. I'm going to state, point blank, that I see no evidence that Stalin was wrong in any universal, absolute, immutable moral sense. Heck, folks like him may be on to something, but I haven't seen evidence of that either, and I have this powerful desire not to die for a cause I don't believe in, so I stand up for myself and others like me who don't want to be discarded for these causes. Society, as I define it for this discussion, is merely the loose affiliation people belong to by sharing similar basic morals. The beliefs namely that you should work for equitable pay (or not work and receive no pay, which is equitable), should not inflict harm for its own sake, and that if society is threatened the threat must be removed. I'm sure there's more, but when one of these concepts is seen by society as breached, we tend to rectify it. That is to say, even when a person has control over a chuck of society, if they don't hold sway over the majority or the power to overwhelm it, when they attack the other side one will overwhelm the other, normalizing or eliminating it. Let's take President Cthulu of the country of Outer. He convinces the public there that they are a master race, and that they will be able to take over the world for his purpose of Totalitarian Indifference. If we look at this separate chuck of society we see differences from the greater world. If we find Cthulu's actions a threat, we will remove him from power or isolate him to prevent the destruction of our society. But, if Cthulu takes over the world and standardizes it to his liking, then his system becomes subjectively right. Also, before you can ask how someone with a platform of indifference can be ambitious enough to take over the world, I don't know. But you get the gist of it.

Very well thought out and honest, thank you. So, hypothetically, since morality is individual and actualized through society, will you stop the Hutu from killing the Tutsi in Africa? You said you don't want to die for a cause you don't believe in. Well, if there is no universal, absolute and morality is based on individuals as they live life through a society and further more you don't want to lose your own life for a purpose not all together real to you, then is it even logical for you to stop the violence or foreign genocide that in NO way threatens your societies livelihood?

I'm sure I'm missing few more environmental effects, but morality extrapolated from these. I'm not sure how I've gone back on my definition of morality, because I've stated it's a product of reasoning, empathy, etc, and that those are products of evolution, and that our evolution flows in the direction people let it. This way of doing things still exists in nature because we haven't all killed ourselves yet. I can't say that it's bloody brilliant, but evolved up to this point so it isn't circular reasoning

But in order to make the statement "I can't say that it's bloody brilliant" you have to have a moral standpoint to point to. What would be "bloody brilliant?" Why? Even within your claims for no absolute morality in the universal sense you STILL point to an absolute morality.

I want to elaborate on the above more, but I feel fogged now. There's more to be said on it, I just think I'm at the limits of my ability to explain it. Not understand it, but explain how everything ties together without having to go through each individual concept. But to give you your sensational answer, I can find no evidence that Stalin, or Hitler, or anyone else was ever wrong in any objective sense. But they repulse me to the core by being so at odds with my morality.

You've proven yourself well up to the challenges of my questions...I won't hold anything like that against you. Whenever you feel the need to clarify something please tell me and I'll gladly take that into account.

It was moral to kill the jews in Nazi Germany, but people in other societies would contend that that wasn't moral. Slavery in the USA was moral by popularity, but similarily it is called immoral by other societies. The label "moral" is something that is independent of what is popular, or else it's pretty meaningless.

Many atheists (I don't believe most) will actually argue that morality is meaningless. Since the logical atheist realizes that he doesn't have value then he must realize that he has no way of valuing his own opinion on a constructed subject such as morality.

LARA

I dissect posts because I am pretty fervent about addressing everything you guys bring up. The dissection allows us to look at arguments more specifically rather than blindly argue against a whole larger conception. I apologize if this upsets you, but I do it simply to be fair to everyone I debate with.

I'm going to make a supposition for this argument, that morality is based on survival. What keeps the most members of a population alive for the longest time is the most moral action.

You took a big step there. You said morality is based on survival, which is fine, but then, out of nowhere, you turned it into "what keeps the most members of a population alive for the longest time" which I have not seen justified. Why isn't it "what keeps the strongest and smartest members of the population alive for the longest time"? I put that in bold because I need the answer to that question.

Genocide eliminates certain people from the population that humans see as unfit. It is done violently and therefore ultimately eliminates not only the humans the genocidal maniac sees as unfit, but any compassionate members who try to oppose this leader.

Why is compassion good? Why should he even care? In fact Machiavelli would argue that the ruler should come in and completely wipe ALL opposition with brute force right from the start.

Now purged of these members of society we can see a simple result. Resources are again plentiful. But genetic diversity, the crux of the survival of a species has been reduced. Additionally, the number of compassionate members in society have been reduced.

Genetic diversity is only necessary within a small scale. A master race is well equipped to create the next generation without any inbreeding problems.

A new genocidal maniac comes along and the process is repeated. There are less people and the resource problem has been solved. Unfortunately, genetic diversity is reduced and compassion is reduced.

I'm pretty sure humans are capable of procreating rather quickly. Given that the "master race" succeeded, people would have the same beliefs and opinions for a while. Which will help alleviate the problems posed by such a possibility. Remember, much of the Nazi population were committed to Hitler as their leader.

If this process continues on, the population of humans will become genetically constrained. Without genetic diversity in the population, disease becomes harder to fight. Without compassion in the population, violence becomes more and more of a problem.

The problem you are running into is that you aren't establishing an absolute causal link to such a case. You aren't stating it as a possibility but it is. There isn't a way to know that such a problem will occur, if it doesn't occur anything you say after believing that you have established such a statement is built on a nonexistent foundation and will ultimately implode under its own assumptions.

This is why genocide is wrong from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective.

Again, you have created a hypothetical situation that has MANY different outcomes, chosen the worst one and stated that you can argue exclusively against that proposition based on the worst outcome being the inevitable outcome. You will forgive me if I'm not convinced. However, if what you are saying IS true, then shouldn't abortion be morally wrong from an atheistic perspective? I'm not sure you are reading what I"m writing, so if you are please say the words happy camper at the top of your next post. Thanks, I just want to know I"m being listened to.

But from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective I can see that there are other populations on earth that are like this in the animal world. We tend to regard animals as stupid and violent while forgetting our own stupidity and violence. We place ourselves at the pinnacle of creation and forget that other populations are still developing, and under the forces of evolution they will be selected for their intelligence and compassion because it's these qualities that allow life to continue.

Please provide the evidence that compassion leads to the species' selection. ACTUAL evidence.

Tom62

My 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute. Many people think that there is a clear distinction between good and right, but most of the time it is not black or white but a gray zone.

If you state "most of the time it is not" that automatically implies that there are cases the demonstrate the opposite. Therefore, according to your own statement, there are moral black and whites.

You have now farmers in Ethiopia who don't care whether their crops fail (due to bad and outdated agricultural knowledge), because the white man will help him out anyway.

Actually, it's even worse than that. From an economic perspective, sending food aid is like undercutting all agriculture in the third world since they can't compete against free food.

DennisK

Using Christianity's views of morality (I was formerly a catholic), the OT morals were drastically different to the values in the NT. Now look at how the morals have changed in the last 2000 years, or the last 100 years. To be a 'moral' Christian in this day and age you must discard much of the teachings of the bible.

I disagree in that I believe Christ's resurrection and his teachings demonstrate that much of the OT laws are no longer relevant.

In the OT era, you were doing your moral duty by killing infidels, blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc. It's hard for most of us to imagine this was not only tolerated, but encouraged. You are considered fundamentalist and immoral if you follow the OT or Qoran verbatim.

This actually has a quite simple solution. Who assigns value to human life?

[curiosityandthecat]

I disagree in that I believe Christ's resurrection and his teachings demonstrate that much of the OT laws are no longer relevant.

Wouldn't it be understandable, then, to say that modernity and post-modernity, the realm of science, logic and reason have made the NT laws no longer relevant, as well? If it's possible for time, progression and specific events (in this case, Christ's supposed resurrection and teachings; why not the discovery of carbon dating or the construction of the fossil record or the constantly evolving theory of ... well, evolution) to make those in the past less important or even obsolete, could we not extend that to its logical conclusion and suppose that, just as the NT events outshined OT laws, new scientific discoveries outshine and, indeed lay to rest, NT events?

[Titan]

Wouldn't it be understandable, then, to say that modernity and post-modernity, the realm of science, logic and reason have made the NT laws no longer relevant, as well? If it's possible for time, progression and specific events (in this case, Christ's supposed resurrection and teachings; why not the discovery of carbon dating or the construction of the fossil record or the constantly evolving theory of ... well, evolution) to make those in the past less important or even obsolete, could we not extend that to its logical conclusion and suppose that, just as the NT events outshined OT laws, new scientific discoveries outshine and, indeed lay to rest, NT events?

A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, how can you be actually repentant when you are planning on asking for forgiveness but still desire to live in sin? There are two choices from a Christian perspective: sin or Christ. There isn't a best of both worlds where you can choose both as I hope I've demonstrated.

One comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Kyu

p.s. I pretty much believe your Christ never existed.

[Titan]

One comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Death is inherently a concept of the weak, I'm not weak therefore I cannot die.

[Kyuuketsuki]

One comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Death is inherently a concept of the weak, I'm not weak therefore I cannot die.

Why is death inherently a concept of the weak? Are you weak if you get run over by a 20 ton juggernaut?

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

I suppose you're right. I have this nasty habit of looking for multiple sources of evidence, not sticking to one doctrinal book.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

And it is all based on the assumption that your god create everything ... so, your validatable proof for god would be?

Kyu

[Titan]

Why is death inherently a concept of the weak? Are you weak if you get run over by a 20 ton juggernaut?

It's not, I was pointing out that your logic was flawed from it's original presupposition. If God is true then morality isn't a religious concept but a concept that applies to everyone, all together, regardless of whether you think you adhere to it or not. If Christianity is a reality then your statement is like you standing right next to the ocean as a tsunami is coming in and saying "I don't believe there is water there so I'm not going to be knocked over." Reality still applies to you. Belief doesn't diminish truth.

And it is all based on the assumption that your god create everything ... so, your validatable proof for god would be?

I haven't gotten there, I was just pointing out that the problem wasn't a problem if Christianity is true. AGAIN, I haven't PROVEN Christianity, in fact that wouldn't even qualify as evidence. It merely shows that Christianity is not NOT true, if you understand what I"m saying.