Zone1 Morality is natural phenomenon.

[presonorek]

I think God wants us to be good because being bad sucks.

 

[Meriweather]

I think God wants us to be good because being bad sucks.

Yes. God wants us to have a good life and be the best version of ourselves possible. He gave us Church/Assembly and a handbook to guide us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes. God wants us to have a good life and be the best version of ourselves possible. He gave us Church/Assembly and a handbook to guide us.

I particularly like the part where He instructs you on the correct way to own slaves.

I guess "good" means different things to different people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes. God wants us to have a good life and be the best version of ourselves possible. He gave us Church/Assembly and a handbook to guide us.

I don't think you are following the handbook. I think it is following you. Which is a good thing, dont get me wrong. I think your morality and ethics are first a product of where and when you were born.

 

[Meriweather]

I particularly like the part where He instructs you on the correct way to own slaves.

I guess "good" means different things to different people.

In Colonial America, about five percent of the population owned slaves, meaning ninety-five percent did not. In the South, as many as twenty-five percent of the population owned slaves, meaning seventy-five percent of the South did not own slaves. It seems the same statistics are likely in the Jewish population at one time, but then began falling.

In other words how to treat slaves only applied to a small portion of the population. Of that twenty-five percent, how many do you suppose were guilty of beating their slaves? Meanwhile, the Israelites were instructed to give safe harbor to slaves who were running from cruel masters.

Do you see yourself as one of the twenty-five percent of South or the Biblical population who owned slaves? If you decide, yes, you would have been part of the minority who owned slaves, would you also be one of the even smaller minority who beat his/her slaves?

If you were part of the greater majority who did not want to see slaves mistreated, wouldn't you want a law that protected slaves/indentured servants from being mistreated by the few? Wouldn't you want a law that permitted harboring mistreated slaves when they escaped?

 

[Meriweather]

I don't think you are following the handbook. I think it is following you. Which is a good thing, dont get me wrong. I think your morality and ethics are first a product of where and when you were born.

I disagree, if we are speaking of core moral principles. Those have been shown widespread throughout the world and the world's many cultures. Think of these as the objective morals as opposed to what you may be considering, which are known as subjective morals. It is the subjective morals that may differ from culture to culture and even within cultures. The greatest danger for cultures/society(s) is the idea that each individual can decide for him/herself what is moral or ethical.

What say you?

 

[dblack]

I disagree, if we are speaking of core moral principles. Those have been shown widespread throughout the world and the world's many cultures. Think of these as the objective morals as opposed to what you may be considering, which are known as subjective morals. It is the subjective morals that may differ from culture to culture and even within cultures. The greatest danger for cultures/society(s) is the idea that each individual can decide for him/herself what is moral or ethical.

What say you?

Just out of curiosity - did you watch the video?

 

[Meriweather]

Just out of curiosity - did you watch the video?

As most people around here are already aware, I don't click on links. My remarks are always in response to the member's statement.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

Are you advocating everyone decides for themselves what is right or wrong for him/herself (other than intentionally hurting others)?

Everyone needs God. Not all will answer to God. Having any others over us as a state is not with them answering to God yet. We are not better with that. But we have cities which are too large. There should be small communities. Those who know can separate to such small communities where they live independently from others, they should be answering to God, there can be such communities. A community can have some rules agreed on among those there.

 

[Meriweather]

Everyone needs God. Not all will answer to God. Having any others over us as a state is not with them answering to God yet. We are not better with that. But we have cities which are too large. There should be small communities. Those who know can separate to such small communities where they live independently from others, they should be answering to God, there can be such communities. A community can have some rules agreed on among those there.

I agree with this. It is why I am also advocating against corporations. I believe it is healthier for communities for individuals to build and run their own business (or partnership) rather than work for corporations that are always giving us what we can buy rather than us giving the mandate of what it is we want to consume. Comparison: Hostess Twinkies versus handmade baked goods, fresh daily. Is this vision pie-in-the-sky?

 

[dblack]

As most people around here are already aware, I don't click on links. My remarks are always in response to the member's statement.

Ok. Well, the phenomenon described in the video points to the kind of rational, object morality you were citing. We do morality, cooperation, etc... because they work. Because they make it more likely for a population to thrive.

 

[Meriweather]

Ok. Well, the phenomenon described in the video points to the kind of rational, object morality you were citing. We do morality, cooperation, etc... because they work. Because they make it more likely for a population to thrive.

Did you also note FredVegbarfuss 's Post #389 suggesting populations do better in small towns than in large cities? Focusing on your last sentence, Because they make it more likely for a population to thrive: Is this intended to focus on the scientific, evolutionary explanation?

Keep in mind I am in favor of, and nothing against, scientific explanations. Accepting them, next I take a step beyond them into philosophy/religion which can focus on what is best for the individual. I've read a little bit on monogamy of all animals. The last I read it is yet to be determined why a small percentage (two or three percent if I recall correctly) are monogamous. One factor observed is that the offspring of monogamous pairs are happier than the offspring of non-monogamous pairs. I found this interesting; I wonder how the science decided that beavers (who are monogamous) are happier than raccoons (who are not monogamous).

 

[dblack]

Did you also note FredVegbarfuss 's Post #389 suggesting populations do better in small towns than in large cities? Focusing on your last sentence, Because they make it more likely for a population to thrive: Is this intended to focus on the scientific, evolutionary explanation?

Yes, well - not evolutionary, there's no genetic component - but I'm defending a naturalistic understanding of morality.

My op was more contentious than necessary. I was responding to repeated threads and posts claiming that atheists are by nature amoral. I find plenty to justify and explain morality in natural science. That doesn't disprove a god or anything (that's not my goal here).

 

[Meriweather]

My op was more contentious than necessary. I was responding to repeated threads and posts claiming that atheists are by nature amoral. I find plenty to justify and explain morality in natural science. That doesn't disprove a god or anything (that's not my goal here).

You and I agree that atheists are not amoral. Close living with both atheists and people of faith in my family, the similarity I see in all of us is that we have this drive to do the right thing. Both have the propensity to defend whatever it was we did when someone claims it was wrong. A good example of this is bullying. The 'bully' (sometimes rightfully so) makes the claim he was just teasing and having fun--just being a comedian. In other words he wasn't in the wrong because he was just clowning around. Everyone shares that. When accused of doing something wrong, we automatically set up a defense.

I've had more than one atheist tell me, they looked deep inside and the fact is, they had no belief in God. One added that if there is a God, the only thing he had to offer Him is the truth: He didn't lie/act like he did believe. He didn't go through the motions.