Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Morality Depend on Religion?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2009 11:24:29 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 10:02:04 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 2:16:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/9/2009 10:59:44 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Yes, morality depends on religion.

For example if a person just does something and they say it is right...whose morality are they actually following? (Answer = their OWN)(it is right because they say it is right...hmmmm....)

and if another person does something else and says that what they did is actually right...then they are saying it is moral ...because THEY said so....

an OBJECTIVE source of moral laws is needed...and that source is God. What GOD says is actually what matters...not what men say....

Then how is that atheists are able to have morality? Also a set a of God derived laws are not morals, they are laws. Which is a completely different concept.

Could it be that atheists just happen to be aligning themselves with those objective laws and that they are keeping those particular points of the law?


Unlikely as their exists a wide range of moral opinion amongst atheists, as well as theists. There is no evidence to suggest a consistent external influence.

Laws and morals are not such a completely different concept...the laws are given so that the morals are followed...some groups of people needed stricter laws (the Israelites in the Old Testament for example) so God gave them many ordinances and rituals for them...to keep them in the path of their duty and in remembrance to God...(because of their stiffneckedness)

Yes they are completely different concepts, law is enforced through fear and force, morality through guilt and shame. There are occaisions when the two meet and overlap, they approach from different angles none the less.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2009 11:25:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 9:22:21 AM, Floid wrote:
an OBJECTIVE source of moral laws is needed...and that source is God. What GOD says is actually what matters...not what men say....

The big problem there is God saying things. It appears he doesn't really have the ability to do that. I haven't ever heard him say anything. In fact, no one has ever really heard him say anything and the people who claim to today called insane.

"No one has ever really heard him say anything"...what makes you think that statement is a true statement. I can assure you that it isn't.

The "insane" description also would be your opinion...it certainly isn't my opinion. I do believe that God can communicate with us...actually very easily...I think many people who pray actually feel the same way...I mean why would a person be asking God for things or asking God questions if they didn't expect God's help or answers (ie. communication)...I would point out to you the obvious fact that MANY people pray...I can tell you also...that many people get answers from God...I know God has answered MANY of my prayers in very powerful ways.

God is real. God has the power to communicate with His children easily...The problem is with man's willingness to receive.

Instead, people are "pointed to God's word" to see what God has to say, but then it turns out that God's word is just a collection of writings which is just a giant cop out that people use because they can't logically answer the question: Why doesn't God just actually come out and say it and real, audible voice and spare us the thousands of year of bloodshed that literal interpretations, misinterpretations, and difference of opinion about what God supposedly said thousands of years ago has caused?

Because this is our second estate...we are here PURPOSELY to be tried and tested...how can a person be judged who was not free to act? We are here to demonstrate to God our level of obedience.

Abraham 3:24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
http://scriptures.lds.org...

NOW is the time to prove your obedience to God!

Alma 34:32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Hey, this would also prevent him from having to eternally torture billions of people who by chance were born into a different religion and will therefore never beg him for forgiveness so that he might not torture them. Seems like its good/good all around.

Do you actually know what happens to people who live on the earth without having the gospel presented to them? There is a plan for them...this life is not all there is...life continues after this life...in the postmortal spirit world they will be taught the gospel...they will be free to accept it or reject it...just like here...everyone gets to decide for themself...

God has provided many ways for a person to know He is real. If there are any who want to know:
God has provided the Book of Mormon which contains a special promise (Moroni 10:3-5) which if a person does their part, then God will do His part and reveal to the person by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. God has also provided other scriptures. God has provided us also with a living prophet and apostles on the earth who are teaching and testifying of Jesus Christ and expounding the plan of salvation. There are also tens of thousands of missionaries teaching anyone who desires to know the truths of salvation...

The problem isn't that God can't communicate with man and reveal the truth to a person ...the problem is that some people don't want to hear the truth...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 1:23:18 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 11:25:16 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Do you actually know what happens to people who live on the earth without having the gospel presented to them?

Yes.

Absolutely nothing.
So prove me wrong, then.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:36:26 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"No one has ever really heard him say anything"...what makes you think that statement is a true statement. I can assure you that it isn't.

Empirical evidence. There are no verifiable cases of any particular God speaking to people, therefore I must conclude he most likely does not.

Has God ever spoken to you in a real, audible voice?

The "insane" description also would be your opinion...

No, it would be by definition. People who claim to hear things that can't be heard by other people are called "insane".

em>I mean why would a person be asking God for things or asking God questions if they didn't expect God's help or answers

The problem is that you never get an answer that you couldn't come up with on your own. No one ever prayed to God and figured out the solution to a previously unsolvable equation, no one ever prayed to God and discovered some new scientific property. People pray to God and then things that normally happen happen... then they say "Ohh look what God did.". Nothing supernatural there, you could pray to a rock and get the same results.

I would point out to you the obvious fact that MANY people pray...I can tell you also...that many people get answers from God...I know God has answered MANY of my prayers in very powerful ways.

Many people pray to a completely different God that you don't believe exists and they get answers just like you do... so what does that say about your argument? Makes it seem a bit flawed.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:37:17 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.


Aren't you supposed to judge not less ye be judged yourself?
ArtGuy1123
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 12:59:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Our sense of morality is deeply embedded in our identity. A sense of self respect, niche, and many other phenomena arise from the moral positions we take. It is therefore absurd to suggest that simply by changing a metaphysical belief you have, your entire sense of morality along with all of your standards would get tossed. This begs the quesiton, which I believe has no answer, but I think there are probabilities to consider. A reductio ad absurdum would be to imagine an upstanding person, highly respected and honoured, never steals and is very generous, realizes there is no god. Immediately after realizing this, he goes out and steals, and completely negates his donations to charity. This is not impossible but to say it represents the norm of human psychology it absurd.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:55:30 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:37:17 AM, Floid wrote:
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.




Aren't you supposed to judge not less ye be judged yourself?

I do not judge him morally but judge Mormonism against the Word of God: It is an heretical cult.
The Cross.. the Cross.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:15:31 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 1:17:30 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 10:59:44 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
an OBJECTIVE source of moral laws is needed...

Why is it needed?

That is a very good question...I've had different ideas on that question...but I'll answer it now from the context of how I was explaining that certain situation.
I am thinking of a situation like this:
Person A steals some money from person B and says that it is ok...that they their morals say that might makes right.
Person B then says that is not right, give it back and that it is not moral to steal according to their morals.

So how would that situation be resolved of whose morals were right...if there was no accurate gauge to go by? I'm saying that an accurate moral gauge is needed so that proper understanding of right and wrong can be determined.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:17:29 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:15:31 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 1:17:30 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 10:59:44 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
an OBJECTIVE source of moral laws is needed...

Why is it needed?

That is a very good question...I've had different ideas on that question...but I'll answer it now from the context of how I was explaining that certain situation.
I am thinking of a situation like this:
Person A steals some money from person B and says that it is ok...that they their morals say that might makes right.
Person B then says that is not right, give it back and that it is not moral to steal according to their morals.

So how would that situation be resolved of whose morals were right...if there was no accurate gauge to go by? I'm saying that an accurate moral gauge is needed so that proper understanding of right and wrong can be determined.

It would be solved by consensus, or the rule of the authorities acting according to their own morality. Which would be subjective. There is not such thing as an objective morality.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:32:51 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/11/2009 5:39:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.

The Mormon Church is officially known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It is a Church, not a cult. It is the 4th largest church in the USA. It is a worldwide church with members in almost every single country.

The Church followed all the proper government regulations when it was formed and today (as always) leaders in the Church are recognized officially by the government as authorized ecclesiastical ministers...for example weddings performed by the Bishops are recognized as official and valid weddings in the eyes of the law...etc...
The Mormon church is a church DATC, not a cult! I think you know that!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:42:00 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:32:51 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/11/2009 5:39:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.

The Mormon Church is officially known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It is a Church, not a cult. It is the 4th largest church in the USA. It is a worldwide church with members in almost every single country.

The Church followed all the proper government regulations when it was formed and today (as always) leaders in the Church are recognized officially by the government as authorized ecclesiastical ministers...for example weddings performed by the Bishops are recognized as official and valid weddings in the eyes of the law...etc...
The Mormon church is a church DATC, not a cult! I think you know that!

I would suggest not attempting to reason with it, the troll has no concept of rational debate nor basic honesty and your efforts will not be rewarded. Do not feed the troll.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:55:17 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 11:24:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Could it be that atheists just happen to be aligning themselves with those objective laws and that they are keeping those particular points of the law?


Unlikely as their exists a wide range of moral opinion amongst atheists, as well as theists. There is no evidence to suggest a consistent external influence.

It seems like there are some objective morals that are very consistent among all people (theists as well as atheists) ...(ex: not to murder, not to steal, etc...) there does actually appear to be a lot of agreement on many moral standards.

Also what do you think about this idea:
If there was not objective morality I would guess that perhaps there would be many atheists who would not agree that murder was wrong...why wouldn't the natural opinion of an atheist be "might makes right"? and that since this is all there is (from an atheistic perspective - just this one life on Earth) and if they truly thought there were no consequences after they died...why wouldn't they be all about getting all that they can...by any means necessary...?

Laws and morals are not such a completely different concept...the laws are given so that the morals are followed...some groups of people needed stricter laws (the Israelites in the Old Testament for example) so God gave them many ordinances and rituals for them...to keep them in the path of their duty and in remembrance to God...(because of their stiffneckedness)

Yes they are completely different concepts, law is enforced through fear and force, morality through guilt and shame. There are occasions when the two meet and overlap, they approach from different angles none the less.

Ok. I think I can accept that definition. What do you think of the idea of "legislating morality"? The laws being created to encourage people (strongly) to do what is morally right...
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:57:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/11/2009 1:23:18 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/10/2009 11:25:16 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Do you actually know what happens to people who live on the earth without having the gospel presented to them?

Yes.


Absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you know absolutely nothing about what happens to people after they die?
OR
Are you saying that "absolutely nothing" happens to people when they die?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 12:18:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:57:40 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/11/2009 1:23:18 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/10/2009 11:25:16 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Do you actually know what happens to people who live on the earth without having the gospel presented to them?

Yes.


Absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you know absolutely nothing about what happens to people after they die?
OR
Are you saying that "absolutely nothing" happens to people when they die?

A lot of things happen to people when they die.

Mostly though, their bodies decompose as the bacteria in and on their bodies starts to feast on the remnants.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:36:26 AM, Floid wrote:
"No one has ever really heard him say anything"...what makes you think that statement is a true statement. I can assure you that it isn't.

Empirical evidence. There are no verifiable cases of any particular God speaking to people, therefore I must conclude he most likely does not.

Has God ever spoken to you in a real, audible voice?

So do you not accept people's word of it happening? In your opinion are all people untrustworthy? What about in the court of law, when from the words of witnesses people's lives are subjected to legal rulings. There is no empirical evidence in some cases...just people's word and eyewitness accounts...but it is seen as enough by the legal system...

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe. he did and got off the tracks just in time...the train ran over his shoe...but he was clear of the tracks. Here is an example of honorable man about 70 years old...with no reason to deceive...I accept his story to be true, I have no reason to doubt it...he is a credible man in every respect.

I will say that I have not heard an audible voice like that (out loud). I will say that I have experienced things that are more powerful than that though. Also, I have heard spiritual voices that were giving me direction and I heard the exact words that were spoken...as if it was a whisper...but it was a spiritual voice...Here is one example:
I was in a place I probably should not have been in...anyway I was just sitting there kind of doing nothing...I felt something on my left thigh..it kind of twitched...then from my right side as if I could tell where this voice was coming from I heard someone/ something say - QUOTE "Didn't you hear what he just said? All that's left is to load the gun"...suddenly I realized that the situation I was in was a very bad place for me to be. I asked my girlfriend if she was ready to leave...she was, we left immediately. As I was leaving there was a gun being aimed at my head by a guy named Paul....anyway...I give thanks to God that I am yet alive today...


The "insane" description also would be your opinion...

No, it would be by definition. People who claim to hear things that can't be heard by other people are called "insane".

Is it insane to align with the truth of what is actually going on? I think not...there is actual spiritual phenomenon happening. If a person experiences these things it would be insane to deny the reality of it. THAT is what would be insane! Take Saul/Paul for example on the road to Damascus.

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Insanity would be if Paul decided that the Lord wasn't real...after he had just experienced the Lord personally. I also had a vision that showed to me which church to join...if I was to pretend like that didn't happen I would consider myself insane...but by acknowledging the truth of what actually happened as the truth ...that is a very sane thing to do...

em>I mean why would a person be asking God for things or asking God questions if they didn't expect God's help or answers

The problem is that you never get an answer that you couldn't come up with on your own. No one ever prayed to God and figured out the solution to a previously unsolvable equation, no one ever prayed to God and discovered some new scientific property. People pray to God and then things that normally happen happen... then they say "Ohh look what God did.". Nothing supernatural there, you could pray to a rock and get the same results.

Hmmm...I imagine that many of these Christians who discovered these scientific principles had prayed about it: http://en.wikipedia.org...

There have been times when I have been tempted and I have prayed and received strengthening against the temptation...I think that if I had not prayed I would not have been helped and that I would have sinned (I know this because unfortunately many times I HAVEN'T prayed for help against temptations...and I have been allowed to fall...)

I would point out to you the obvious fact that MANY people pray...I can tell you also...that many people get answers from God...I know God has answered MANY of my prayers in very powerful ways.

Many people pray to a completely different God that you don't believe exists and they get answers just like you do... so what does that say about your argument? Makes it seem a bit flawed.

Why do you think they are praying to a different God?
If a person believes in God (a supreme creator) and they are acting according to their best light and knowledge why would the true God not respond to them? Should He not answer them because they didn't know His correct name, even though they were being sincere and exercising faith in the supreme being "God"?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 12:54:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:42:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2009 11:32:51 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/11/2009 5:39:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.

The Mormon Church is officially known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It is a Church, not a cult. It is the 4th largest church in the USA. It is a worldwide church with members in almost every single country.

The Church followed all the proper government regulations when it was formed and today (as always) leaders in the Church are recognized officially by the government as authorized ecclesiastical ministers...for example weddings performed by the Bishops are recognized as official and valid weddings in the eyes of the law...etc...
The Mormon church is a church DATC, not a cult! I think you know that!

I would suggest not attempting to reason with it, the troll has no concept of rational debate nor basic honesty and your efforts will not be rewarded. Do not feed the troll.

Thank you for the advice. I have had him do this kind of thing several times before. I think I am wanting to make at least one comment per forum though if he does that...to let people know that I don't agree with him...to sort of put myself on the record so to speak, and to help disabuse the mind of the public and show them there is a dissenting opinion about what he says. I certainly have no intention of matching him word for word or post for post though, but I sometimes try to clear up certain blatant misrepresentations of the church.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 12:56:52 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 12:18:34 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/12/2009 11:57:40 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/11/2009 1:23:18 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/10/2009 11:25:16 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Do you actually know what happens to people who live on the earth without having the gospel presented to them?

Yes.


Absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you know absolutely nothing about what happens to people after they die?
OR
Are you saying that "absolutely nothing" happens to people when they die?

A lot of things happen to people when they die.

Mostly though, their bodies decompose as the bacteria in and on their bodies starts to feast on the remnants.

Agreed. But most importantly the other thing that happens is that the spirit and the body separate. The body goes to the grave or wherever, and the spirit goes into the postmortal spirit world.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 1:04:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:17:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2009 11:15:31 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 1:17:30 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 10:59:44 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
an OBJECTIVE source of moral laws is needed...

Why is it needed?

That is a very good question...I've had different ideas on that question...but I'll answer it now from the context of how I was explaining that certain situation.
I am thinking of a situation like this:
Person A steals some money from person B and says that it is ok...that they their morals say that might makes right.
Person B then says that is not right, give it back and that it is not moral to steal according to their morals.

So how would that situation be resolved of whose morals were right...if there was no accurate gauge to go by? I'm saying that an accurate moral gauge is needed so that proper understanding of right and wrong can be determined.

It would be solved by consensus, or the rule of the authorities acting according to their own morality. Which would be subjective. There is not such thing as an objective morality.

So if the majority in this situation decided that stealing was ok, then that would actually make it OK?
OR
EVEN IF the majority of people said that stealing was OK....it would still be wrong...for reasons of "objective morality".... that it is a true principle that stealing is wrong.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:04:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/10/2009 9:56:09 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 12:34:37 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/9/2009 11:56:11 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Are you familiar with what an "Abrahamic Trial" is?

Yes... I'm asking what if God expects you to go through with it anyway- what if it's not a trial... Answer the question.

I have given you sufficient information in my answer that you could figure out what the right thing to do would be, if for some strange reason that would be required.

What a brilliant non-answer. I'm STILL waiting. If God showed up RIGHT NOW and commanded you to rape your mother and sodomize your sisters, would it be right to do so? Is that a moral action? Would you feel good about yourself afterward?

These are yes/no questions... all I need is one word for each.

They make a SUBJECTIVE decision.

I'm not sure here what you are getting at...it is late....maybe after I reread it later, it will make sense to me...or feel free to break it down for me if you get time...

Basically the root of all moral judgment is subjective, not objective.

So are you saying that if any old person just says that some particular action is morally right, then it is right (for them)? (but the same thing wouldn't necessarily be morally right for another person?)

No - I'm saying when a person decides which system to use for determining what is right and what is wrong, they do not consult a set of objective principles to do so - they make a subjective decision.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 11:54:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:55:17 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 11:24:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Could it be that atheists just happen to be aligning themselves with those objective laws and that they are keeping those particular points of the law?


Unlikely as their exists a wide range of moral opinion amongst atheists, as well as theists. There is no evidence to suggest a consistent external influence.

It seems like there are some objective morals that are very consistent among all people (theists as well as atheists) ...(ex: not to murder, not to steal, etc...) there does actually appear to be a lot of agreement on many moral standards.


They are not consistent however, each age, locale and person will have their own take on the morals of murder, theft and other basic moral issues. Even if they were universal, it does not prove the existence of an objective morality.

Also what do you think about this idea:
If there was not objective morality I would guess that perhaps there would be many atheists who would not agree that murder was wrong

But the term murder is subjective, would every atheist have the same opinion on euthanasia, abortion or killing in self defence? If there was an objective morality there would be a definition of these terms, so the question would be were is, or how do we perceive this objective morality?

...why wouldn't the natural opinion of an atheist be "might makes right"? and that
since this is all there is (from an atheistic perspective - just this one life on Earth)
and if they truly thought there were no consequences after they died...why
wouldn't they be all about getting all that they can...by any means necessary...?

Well this philosophy would make sense logical, but a persons mind consists of reason and emotion. Though they might intellectually support this attitude they will likely still have an empathy for their fellow humans and still have a conditioned guilt response. This is essentially morality, for which we appear to have an innate capacity to learn, but it is nonetheless taught to us.

Ok. I think I can accept that definition. What do you think of the idea of "legislating
morality"? The laws being created to encourage people (strongly) to do what is
morally right...

Well I am a libertarian... of sorts so I would generally be against this. Something should only be illegal if it infringes on the rights of another. Take prostitution for instance, most people have moral qualms against this trade... but consensual sex between adults is perfectly legal, the fact that money changes hands is of no consequence. Do I really harm anyone if I pay or am paid for sex?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 4:27:45 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:32:51 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/11/2009 5:39:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Note to all:

Heart_of_the_matter is a Mormon and so part of an heretical cult.

The Mormon Church is officially known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It is a Church, not a cult. It is the 4th largest church in the USA. It is a worldwide church with members in almost every single country.

The Church followed all the proper government regulations when it was formed and today (as always) leaders in the Church are recognized officially by the government as authorized ecclesiastical ministers...for example weddings performed by the Bishops are recognized as official and valid weddings in the eyes of the law...etc...
The Mormon church is a church DATC, not a cult! I think you know that!

I don't care HOW big you are or WHO regulates you.. YOU are a CULT:

ONE of the reasons I know this is because you are NOT ALLOWED to debate me on this.
You people are UNSCRIPTUAL.
I can help you be free of this nonsense.
The Cross.. the Cross.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 9:28:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:04:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/10/2009 9:56:09 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 12:34:37 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I have given you sufficient information in my answer that you could figure out what the right thing to do would be, if for some strange reason that would be required.

What a brilliant non-answer. I'm STILL waiting. If God showed up RIGHT NOW and commanded you to rape your mother and sodomize your sisters, would it be right to do so? Is that a moral action? Would you feel good about yourself afterward?
These are yes/no questions... all I need is one word for each.

I'm sure you would agree that some questions do not deserve to be answered. I deem that question unworthy of a response. I know you are intelligent enough to figure it out though.

"He must be very ignorant for he answers every question he is asked." - Voltaire

So are you saying that if any old person just says that some particular action is morally right, then it is right (for them)? (but the same thing wouldn't necessarily be morally right for another person?)

No - I'm saying when a person decides which system to use for determining what is right and what is wrong, they do not consult a set of objective principles to do so - they make a subjective decision.

OK - I understand now what you are saying. I would say that just because a person makes a subjective choice on what to believe or what to go by does not affect the reality of an objective morality existing.
Whether or not people make a subjective choice to embrace it or make a subjective conscious choice to reject it = doesn't change the reality of if "objective morality" exists or not.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 9:30:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.

He was just a kid at the time...
Didn't you do anything unwise when you were a kid?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 9:46:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/12/2009 11:54:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2009 11:55:17 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/10/2009 11:24:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Could it be that atheists just happen to be aligning themselves with those objective laws and that they are keeping those particular points of the law?


Unlikely as their exists a wide range of moral opinion amongst atheists, as well as theists. There is no evidence to suggest a consistent external influence.

It seems like there are some objective morals that are very consistent among all people (theists as well as atheists) ...(ex: not to murder, not to steal, etc...) there does actually appear to be a lot of agreement on many moral standards.


They are not consistent however, each age, locale and person will have their own take on the morals of murder, theft and other basic moral issues. Even if they were universal, it does not prove the existence of an objective morality.

Thank you for all the great insights. I would say that even if all the people agreed that murder was alright or that stealing was alright...that that would not disprove objective morality...Those things would still be wrong, even if the majority agreed it was right.
...Overall, I would say I agree with your premise that just because a lot of people are doing something doesn't make it right (or wrong) necessarily.

Also what do you think about this idea:
If there was not objective morality I would guess that perhaps there would be many atheists who would not agree that murder was wrong

But the term murder is subjective, would every atheist have the same opinion on euthanasia, abortion or killing in self defence? If there was an objective morality there would be a definition of these terms, so the question would be were is, or how do we perceive this objective morality?

I would say that those things would fall under different moral judgments...murder is separate from killing. I was once asked the question "Why is killing wrong?"...after pondering a bit I realized that it was a loaded question...because killing is NOT ALWAYS wrong...there are accidental killings for ex. or there is killing in self defense, killing in war etc...but murder is distinct from those...
I think there are objective answers to those questions.

...why wouldn't the natural opinion of an atheist be "might makes right"? and that
since this is all there is (from an atheistic perspective - just this one life on Earth)
and if they truly thought there were no consequences after they died...why
wouldn't they be all about getting all that they can...by any means necessary...?

Well this philosophy would make sense logical, but a persons mind consists of reason and emotion. Though they might intellectually support this attitude they will likely still have an empathy for their fellow humans and still have a conditioned guilt response. This is essentially morality, for which we appear to have an innate capacity to learn, but it is nonetheless taught to us.

I think it is the people's conscience...teaching them of a universal "objective" law.
That murder is wrong. (esp. v. 18-20)

Alma 42:16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?
18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Ok. I think I can accept that definition. What do you think of the idea of "legislating
morality"? The laws being created to encourage people (strongly) to do what is
morally right...

Well I am a libertarian... of sorts so I would generally be against this. Something should only be illegal if it infringes on the rights of another. Take prostitution for instance, most people have moral qualms against this trade... but consensual sex between adults is perfectly legal, the fact that money changes hands is of no consequence. Do I really harm anyone if I pay or am paid for sex?

I also agree with many libertarian points of view. Do you not think that prostitution affects society at all?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 5:04:05 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/18/2009 9:30:27 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.

He was just a kid at the time...
Didn't you do anything unwise when you were a kid?

Like join a CULT and become a mormon for example?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 10:23:54 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/18/2009 9:30:27 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.

He was just a kid at the time...
Didn't you do anything unwise when you were a kid?

Yeah. I used to go to Church.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 10:27:32 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/19/2009 10:23:54 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/18/2009 9:30:27 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.

He was just a kid at the time...
Didn't you do anything unwise when you were a kid?

Yeah. I used to go to Church.

I believed in God for a while and prayed. I also had *gasp* communion and read the bible. The horror *cries*
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2009 4:40:50 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/19/2009 10:23:54 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/18/2009 9:30:27 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:09:38 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/12/2009 12:43:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I actually do know people in person who have heard audible voices (not from this physical plan). One would be Barry Fisher (I was dating his daughter)...he told me of a time when he was young and walking on the train tracks...to spare you all the details...basically his shoelace got tangled on the track somehow and his shoe was stuck there and a train was coming at him...he tried to pull his shoelace free but he couldn't...he then heard an AUDIBLE voice tell him to take off his shoe.

Assuming this is even true, what an idiot this guy is.

He was just a kid at the time...
Didn't you do anything unwise when you were a kid?

Yeah. I used to go to Church.

Mmm. BIG difference from 'going to Church' to 'BEING the Church'..
It is NOT a building but a BODY of people: the body of Christ no less.
The Cross.. the Cross.