Morality?

[Drakim]

One thing I've seen all over the place when people debate religion. faith, science and reason, is the different arguments about morality. For example, a lot of religions people accuse atheists of making up their own morality. It is the relative morality vs the universal morality.

First of all, you can pick your own religion. Nobody is forcing you to have THIS religion. People do convert between religions, as it is a chose. And people do stick with their own religions, which is also a chose. And with just about all religions, comes a set of rules, often divine. These rules tell you how to behave and what not to do. So, since you pick your own religion, and therefore also pick your own set of rules, don't you pick your own morality?

And next, I thought about the fact that people within a religion don't agree on everything. Just look at abortions. There are both Christians who oppose abortions and agree with abortions. Within all religions groups, people agree and disagree. The Bible can't send a message that abortion should be allowed AND shouldn't be allowed at the same time, so at one point, somebody must have picked their stance. Isn't this picking your own morality too?

[ForkRobotik]

You right, there is no universal morality. The idea of religions is to bring everyone in line with a certain world view and restrict ones' perception on life. However, in the individual sense, christians/muslims/jews are less moral people than most other peoples.

[Korriken]

good and evil are a matter of perspective. some say condoms are good, some say they are evil.

also religions don't restrict people's views, the people do that themselves.

[BeFell]

At 4/14/07 08:14 AM, Drakim wrote: The Bible can't send a message that abortion should be allowed AND shouldn't be allowed at the same time, so at one point, somebody must have picked their stance.

Have you ever sat down and read that thing, it's all over the place. Obviously morality just comes down to individual interpretation and thus it's relative in that sense but that's really no reason why a bunch of people can't get together and dictate what is or isn't acceptable.

[SmilezRoyale]

The New Testamate is composed of 4 different veiws on the same story, FYI.

Here's where your Morals Come from:

What you think depends on how your raised, typically it's found "Middle Ground" between what the most strict and yet influential thinkers in your life are and the Least Strict and yet influential thinkers in your life are. Ex:

Parents Beleifs:

- Have Sex at age of 18+ and be married
- Go to Church on Sunday's
- Be Courteous to women whenever possible, Foul language is a sin.

Friends Beleifs:

- Safe Sex at 14+ is ok, and you dont have to be married
- going to church is a waste of time
- Women enjoy being fondled, and no one really minds foul language anymore

by the time the 'middle man' reaches adult hood, typically their morals are usually more dolidified, and they might be somewhere along this line:

Middle:

- Safe Sex at 18+ is ok
- Go to church when invited, as well as durring important religous holidays, but you dont have to go every week
- I'm not your chivalrous knight, but i'm not a pervert either; i try to keep my language minimal especially around family and childeren.

It's all about the evolution of memes.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/14/07 09:43 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: You right, there is no universal morality. The idea of religions is to bring everyone in line with a certain world view and restrict ones' perception on life. However, in the individual sense, christians/muslims/jews are less moral people than most other peoples.

;
I don't think that a blanket statement like yours on christians, muslims, & jews being less moral than most other peoples is correct.
Who are these other people's?

as well I think that an 'individuals' behavior should always be the responsibility of the individual.
For example
I might lead a church & order my followers to go strap explosives to themselves & go detonate them in the local market.
That is in my opinion wrong, but the individual that takes the bomb & does the act has the ability to not do so. By doing the act, who is more culpable, or are we both as guilty?

Then there are people like Denis Rader a mass murderer known as 'The B.T.K. killer' he started strangling/murdering people in 1974 & was caught in 2005.
This guy was a congregation leader in the Lutherine church, he was a boy scout master, dog catcher & according to testimony that came out about him he disliked foul language and was very polite- but he murdered people & prefered to torture them befor they died.
How do you compare that morality from an actively involved church goer , to someone like me who is against organized religion , but I don't want to harm anyone.

[playslikepage71]

Raised as a catholic, morality is enforced at a certain level. My parents gave the choice not to go to church after becoming confirmed however and i took that opportunity up. I think religions are a natural part of human psyche along with gods, but it seems that the people who lead our religions have taken basic beliefs and twisted them into a sort of way to undermine governments with their own power. I think religions have become a crock, and personally, i think no leaders of any sort of organizations have any sort of pure intentions

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/14/07 08:14 AM, Drakim wrote:

First of all, you can pick your own religion. Nobody is forcing you to have THIS religion.

What

about

these

guys?

This stuff is annoying too.

There are still plenty of laws preventing freedom of religion

Really, while we can choose what to believe, it's not like there haven't been instances where it's not allowed.

[Memorize]

At 4/14/07 08:14 AM, Drakim wrote: Isn't this picking your own morality too?

No shit. But religous people aren't the one's bitching about. It seems to be half-wits like you who make it a big deal.

Why you ask? Say you do something the majority of the people don't approve of. Lets say it's prostitution. People will tell you that it was unsafe, wrong and immoral. What do you say? "don't tell me how to live my life!". Well excuse the others for voicing their opinion without actually harming you.

[SyntheticTacos]

I will agree that each person has their own definition of morality. I suppose we all have our own view of what "right" and "wrong" is. And the fact is that a lot of people base this on religious scripture. And sometimes, religious scripture has a lot of great things to say about morality. Other times... not so much.

For me morality is basically about protecting individual freedom. Protecting individual freedom to do what you want while balancing society's freedom not to be hurt by the things that total individual freedom produces. "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". Unless you wanted me to hit you in the face. To me, my morality is based on what produces a better, free life for everyone.

[Drakim]

At 4/14/07 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: No shit. But religous people aren't the one's bitching about. It seems to be half-wits like you who make it a big deal.

I don't agree with that. I don't know how many times I've heard that atheist have no moral high ground ect ect. That is the main argument I've heard against having an atheist as a president, for example. (amongst others, don't misunderstand me).

Why you ask? Say you do something the majority of the people don't approve of. Lets say it's prostitution. People will tell you that it was unsafe, wrong and immoral. What do you say? "don't tell me how to live my life!". Well excuse the others for voicing their opinion without actually harming you.

What does that have to do with this issue at all? I'm talking about people painting Godless people as immoral because they "follow the rules they want to", while they do exactly the same things themselves.

[Memorize]

At 4/14/07 01:32 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/14/07 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: No shit. But religous people aren't the one's bitching about. It seems to be half-wits like you who make it a big deal.

I don't agree with that.

Of course you wouldn't.

I don't know how many times I've heard that atheist have no moral high ground ect ect.

Probly because a lot of the "I do whatever I want attitude" typically comes from them

That is the main argument I've heard against having an atheist as a president, for example. (amongst others, don't misunderstand me).

They are the least trusted minority group.

What does that have to do with this issue at all? I'm talking about people painting Godless people as immoral because they "follow the rules they want to", while they do exactly the same things themselves.

And I gave you an example on how these things work!

I just love how you people like to do that. Instead of acknowledging what I say which relates to the subject, you instead claim "what does that have to do with...". You're complaining about morality, i'm showing how it can and does work.

[SmilezRoyale]

Whether you do what is right because you fear gods punishment [or visa versa, desire his reward] or you beleive in kharma or you just dont enjoy other people being an asshole so you choose not to be one yourself is up to you.

I myself beleive in all 3.

Here's a matching game:

"They have none of my morals" - Can be true, your morals are your own, and hopefully well defined. Other individuals cannot always share the same morals you have

"They have no morals" - is never true, what you beleive is moral and what others beleive is moral are 2 things.

"They are to blame for past events" - They have nothing to do with past events, past people have to do with past events.

[AmishGangster]

Christianity and Judaism are based morally on the ten commandments. The are mostley based on how you treat other people. Morality should not be centered around oneself. Thout shalt not kill, Thout shalt not steal, Thout shalt not commit adutery, Thout shalt honor thy father and thy mother, Thout shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, Thout shalt not covet thy neighbor's property. Those are all conducting yourself toward other people. (no stupid, they are'nt all the commandments) And as for keeping the Sabath holy, that means to follow God's word closely. And would it hurt ya not to kill someone on Sunday? Hmmm? : )

That's just my view on it.

[Drakim]

At 4/14/07 02:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/14/07 01:32 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/14/07 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: No shit. But religous people aren't the one's bitching about. It seems to be half-wits like you who make it a big deal.

I don't agree with that.

Of course you wouldn't.

Of course, since I don't agree with your opinions I am obviously dumb. Your opinions are perfect, right?

I don't know how many times I've heard that atheist have no moral high ground ect ect.

Probly because a lot of the "I do whatever I want attitude" typically comes from them

The typical atheist in people's eyes is an old professor. They are usually the people you don't expect to rob a seven-eleven on the street at night. Or have the "I do whatever I want attitude" you speak of.

What I'm talking about isn't how people view atheists on the internet and such, but how they view the position of atheism. The questions usually include:

"But, what do you think happens when you die?"
"But, look at the world, it is so beautiful!"
"Then you have no morality, since you don't believe you have to answer to God."

That is the main argument I've heard against having an atheist as a president, for example. (amongst others, don't misunderstand me).

They are the least trusted minority group.

Yes, but most likely for that very reason.

What does that have to do with this issue at all? I'm talking about people painting Godless people as immoral because they "follow the rules they want to", while they do exactly the same things themselves.

And I gave you an example on how these things work!

By stereotyping all atheist as rude people who just have the "I do whatever I want attitude"?

I'm pretty sure the general view of society on atheists isn't based on how atheist behave in internet forums (where you find this attitude mainly). Most people aren't debating on the internet.

When a official speaks against atheism, do you think it is because somebody was rude to him on the internet? Usually, it is the very position of atheism, not the actions of atheist that make people distrust atheist. I simply pointed out that one of the main arguments for distrusting atheists is pretty flawed.

I just love how you people like to do that. Instead of acknowledging what I say which relates to the subject, you instead claim "what does that have to do with...". You're complaining about morality, i'm showing how it can and does work.

We are talking about two different things.

You talk about arrogant atheists on the net. They exist, just as there are arrogant Christians who tell non-Christians (and often different Christians) that they are blind and is going to hell.

I talk about the all the atheists in society as a whole. Do you believe that people think an atheist is unfit for being president because they have seen a lot of arrogant 15 year old atheists on the net? Claiming that it is the source of the distrust isn't really related, trust me.

[Memorize]

At 4/14/07 05:33 PM, Drakim wrote:

Of course, since I don't agree with your opinions I am obviously dumb. Your opinions are perfect, right?

No... I didn't say that. I would never.

The typical atheist in people's eyes is an old professor. They are usually the people you don't expect to rob a seven-eleven on the street at night. Or have the "I do whatever I want attitude" you speak of.

Half and half.

"But, what do you think happens when you die?"
"But, look at the world, it is so beautiful!"
"Then you have no morality, since you don't believe you have to answer to God."

Actually it's more like:

"I hope I go to heaven when I die"
"What the hell for? God doesn't exist"

But nice try.

Yes, but most likely for that very reason.

Yes, but most likely for my very reason.

By stereotyping all atheist as rude people who just have the "I do whatever I want attitude"?

You mean... kind of like how you painted religous people?

Usually, it is the very position of atheism, not the actions of atheist that make people distrust atheist. I simply pointed out that one of the main arguments for distrusting atheists is pretty flawed.

Hmm.... not really.

You talk about arrogant atheists on the net. They exist, just as there are arrogant Christians who tell non-Christians (and often different Christians) that they are blind and is going to hell.

And I'm not one of them... hurrah!

But you should've made that disctinction before!

[Freemind]

At 4/14/07 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Why you ask? Say you do something the majority of the people don't approve of. Lets say it's prostitution. People will tell you that it was unsafe, wrong and immoral. What do you say? "don't tell me how to live my life!". Well excuse the others for voicing their opinion without actually harming you.

I say live and let live. In my opinion, it isn't the role of the government to protect people from themselves. It may be unsafe but I feel that moral decisions that do not harm anyone else should be left up to the individual.

[Eoewe]

Opinions and nothing more.

/End thread.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/14/07 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote:

Why you ask? Say you do something the majority of the people don't approve of. Lets say it's prostitution. People will tell you that it was unsafe, wrong and immoral. What do you say? "don't tell me how to live my life!". Well excuse the others for voicing their opinion without actually harming you.

;
Prostitution, there is nothing wrong with that as long as the people that sell themselves are willing to do so.

One of the reasons it is so 'unsafe' is because of the laws passed to appease so called moral religious groups.
IF it was legal. If they were licensed establishments ( like in Nevada or Amsterdam ) there would be health certificates needed, the women & men would be in a safer enviroment.

As for it being immoral that again reverts to , depends on what an individual considers moral.

Hundreds of people are Harmed or killed every year because of the morals of religious groups being forced down the throats of people who engage in prostitution.
Woman and men are pimped & forced into something they don't want to do, others are endangered because they want the money that can be made , but have to take risks that could be avoided if prostitution was legalized.

SO As Usual Memorize Your Speaking Out Of Your Ass Again.

PEOPLE ARE HARMED BECAUSE
Other People's Morals (RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES AS USUAL) Are Endangering People With A Different Moral Belief.
fact dude you just won't admit it is a fact.

[Angry-Hatter]

The argument I love the most from the religious nuts is the notion that people would start killing and raping and doing all kinds of nasty things if they became Atheists.

Where the hell do you think human morality came from? God? No. It came from people. If people didn't agree at least to some extent with what was written in the Bible, they wouldn't be following those rules. Of course, having a gun to ones head makes believing a bit easier.

I'm an Atheist (well, I'm actually an Agnostic but as far as the Judeo-Christian religion is concerned, I'm a stone cold Atheist), but I still think that torture and killing is wrong. I think that most religious people are pussies for believing killing and raping and such and such is wrong just because their "god" tells them so. I don't believe in certain ideels because I'm afraid I'll go to hell if I don't, I belive in them because it's the right thing to do.

In fact, if god does exist as he is described in the Bible, then I think it would be of the utmost importance to defy him. A tyrant is still a tyrant even if he did create the universe and everything, and I won't support torture of dissenters, misogyny, and homophobia no matter who tells me to. Evil done in gods name is still evil.

So yeah, if God does exist, sign me up with Satans camp.

[Memorize]

At 4/15/07 09:55 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

IF it was legal. If they were licensed establishments ( like in Nevada or Amsterdam ) there would be health certificates needed, the women & men would be in a safer enviroment.

Actually, to me, they deserve nothing short of death due to their complete lack of responsibility.

And i'm not looking at it religously either.

As for it being immoral that again reverts to , depends on what an individual considers moral.

And that's what I mean. You just want more for yourself because you can't get enough. Haha, you want to be able to what you want, when you want, with total disregard to others. It's funny. But pathetic all at the same time.

Hundreds of people are Harmed or killed every year because of the morals of religious groups being forced down the throats of people who engage in prostitution.

I'm not talking about extremists now am I? Nope, looks like you're talking out of your ass again.

PEOPLE ARE HARMED BECAUSE
Other People's Morals (RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES AS USUAL) Are Endangering People With A Different Moral Belief.

Who came first in this country? Conservatives who keep traditional values? Or liberals who keep causing disruption by complaining?

fact dude you just won't admit it is a fact.

It's called opinion. It's also why i'm superior to you.

[Eoewe]

Gotta love the fundies. Secular ethics rise above all.

[Vaebn]

I too laugh with Christians who say that if you are an atheist what prevents you from murdering, stealing, raping etc because it basically says that if God didn't exist, they would do all those things.. Which to me means that they are as far from morality as it gets.

Let me be clear then. An atheist that helps people WITHOUT expecting afterlife reward, and doesn't harm people WITHOUT fearing punishment is by far more moral than Christians who do so because of wanting to brownose God in order to get into heaven or fear "eternal hell".

Ethics, must be based on thinking, logic, empathy, compassion and actually understanding why an action is bad.

[Vaebn]

At 4/15/07 12:12 PM, Memorize wrote: Who came first in this country? Conservatives who keep traditional values? Or liberals who keep causing disruption by complaining?

Indians.

[Freemind]

At 4/15/07 12:12 PM, Memorize wrote: Actually, to me, they deserve nothing short of death due to their complete lack of responsibility.

And that's what I mean. You just want more for yourself because you can't get enough. Haha, you want to be able to what you want, when you want, with total disregard to others. It's funny. But pathetic all at the same time.

What do you mean by irresponsibility? I don't see how paying for sex is irresponsible. If they weren't safe about it then it would be irresponsible and they will probably get an STD because of it. People have always done what they wanted, and I don't see how legalising prostitution is harming anyone else. If people want to pay for sex, go ahead, more power to you. I don't see how it is selfish.

[Drakim]

At 4/15/07 01:51 PM, Freemind wrote: What do you mean by irresponsibility? I don't see how paying for sex is irresponsible. If they weren't safe about it then it would be irresponsible and they will probably get an STD because of it. People have always done what they wanted, and I don't see how legalising prostitution is harming anyone else. If people want to pay for sex, go ahead, more power to you. I don't see how it is selfish.

Well, a lot of people argue that if paying for sex is legal, it will cause it to be more common. A lot of prostitution is forced, so this would also increase.

[Freemind]

At 4/15/07 02:48 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/15/07 01:51 PM, Freemind wrote: What do you mean by irresponsibility? I don't see how paying for sex is irresponsible. If they weren't safe about it then it would be irresponsible and they will probably get an STD because of it. People have always done what they wanted, and I don't see how legalising prostitution is harming anyone else. If people want to pay for sex, go ahead, more power to you. I don't see how it is selfish.

Well, a lot of people argue that if paying for sex is legal, it will cause it to be more common. A lot of prostitution is forced, so this would also increase.

Well, it would probably become more common. The government would probably treat it like any other service. They would tax it and make sure conditions are decent for employers and employees.

[Drakim]

At 4/15/07 02:50 PM, Freemind wrote: Well, it would probably become more common. The government would probably treat it like any other service. They would tax it and make sure conditions are decent for employers and employees.

XD
I can't twist my brain to picture that.

[Memorize]

At 4/15/07 01:51 PM, Freemind wrote:

What do you mean by irresponsibility?

"I can't supress my own urges". Weaklings.

I don't see how paying for sex is irresponsible.

That's because you're an idiot.

If they weren't safe about it then it would be irresponsible and they will probably get an STD because of it.

Tada! Prostitution! Hookers!

People have always done what they wanted,

And ended up paying the price in some actions.

and I don't see how legalising prostitution is harming anyone else.

Once again, that's because you're an idiot. You want more for yourself instead of thinking about the common good for everyone. Because you can't supress your own urges.

If people want to pay for sex, go ahead, more power to you. I don't see how it is selfish.

No, you're selfish. Because you want it despite without the consequences. And that is the true nature of you pitiful leftists.

At 4/15/07 12:30 PM, Vaebn wrote:

Indians.

Yeah. And i'm Indian.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/15/07 12:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/15/07 09:55 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

IF it was legal. If they were licensed establishments ( like in Nevada or Amsterdam ) there would be health certificates needed, the women & men would be in a safer enviroment.

Actually, to me, they deserve nothing short of death due to their complete lack of responsibility.

;
Lack of responsibility, what are you talking about. Their complete lack of responsibility... your not making any sense with this comment.

It's called opinion. It's also why i'm superior to you.

;
Ahhh, an opinion rigt..... you do know an opinion is just like an asshole, everyone has one !
Why do you always insist on speaking through yours.