There is no Morality

[Cecilie1200]

You know religion used to require human sacrifice right?

you know states used to committ mass genocide right?

Sadly they still do.

But perhaps I should clarify my point.

Take God out the picture, take religion out the picture.

Are all humans built with a sense of morality?

If so, give examples. If so, prove it.

Or is that just faith based as well...

My point is that morality isn't dependent on a god belief or religion.

Some societies worshipped gods which demanded human sacrifice. How did they know that? The priestly caste told them so.

Humans aren't built with a sense of morality. We were able to work out what was good for us and what was bad for us though. We did that without religion or god belief.

Conclusions, like antique beds, should not be jumped upon. And you just turned the whole antique store into a trampoline.

 

[mudwhistle]

You were a very precocious baby if you were born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Most of us were born with the ability to breathe, suck milk, pee and crap. And most of us had to learn about right and wrong.

I didn't have to be taught not to show prejudice, nor did I have to be taught that making a woman or a child cry in pain is not music to my ears.

Actually, yes you did, your environment teaches you more than actual books and catch phrases. You learned it by observation of how others behaved around you, so yes you were taught.

I disagree. The instincts some have where that is concerned has never been a part of my life as long as I have been old enough to be able to retain memories.

My parents are prejudice.....but I didn't take on their beliefs. I deplore ganging up on the weak. I tend to side with the oppressed rather then the oppressor. The sound of a woman or a child crying in pain bothers me to the core. There are some who love this sound. Nobody instilled this feeling in my persona. It is the way I have always been.

One could say that sexual attraction to the same sex is a learned passion where as I believe in many cases it is just something that one is born with. Yes there are some who learn it, but not always.

I just think that you can't place this issue in a framework of being black and white. There are always exceptions. It is way too complex for one person to arbitrarily decide that they know everything about it and that they have all of the answers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you take God out of the picture, meaning that He does not exist, there would be no natural, built-in morality within man. All standards would be man-made, and there would be a lot less agreement about stndards than there are now. It's pretty bad now.

Religion may help define a standard that is workable, but there would be no way to know right from wrong, or good from bad as an absolute with God totally out of the bicture. Religion is man's way of reaching out to, and searching for God. Blindness would be in charge.

Without religion, I suppose some people might be nicer than others, but only because they want to be nice. It really would not matter. We would be just like all of the other animals, only worse. Look around, LOL some are that way now.

I believe God has created us all with knowledge, or a build-in alarm system for moral standards. We abuse it, and neglect it, and it gets numb, unable to function, but I believe it is there.

Good post.

To me, religion is outdated. If God does exist, why the positive connotations? Out thoughts of a higher being are all surrounded by this thought that God, if exists, is some sort of saint. Does a creator necessarily have to be 'God Like' in the sense that we've become accustomed to? Or could he be a bored diety, and our creation is the result of his boredom?

Fact is, we are all animals. Advanced animals, civilized animals yes. But in the end, just another animal. With that said, morality sounds like it's a creation of the mind rather then something built within us.

Oh, really? So then could you tell us why basically selfish creatures like humans, without any outside impetus, would bother to create the concept of altruistic morality, much less adhere to it? To put it bluntly, what benefit is there to me, personally and individually, in being moral?

 

[mudwhistle]

If you take God out of the picture, meaning that He does not exist, there would be no natural, built-in morality within man. All standards would be man-made, and there would be a lot less agreement about stndards than there are now. It's pretty bad now.

Religion may help define a standard that is workable, but there would be no way to know right from wrong, or good from bad as an absolute with God totally out of the bicture. Religion is man's way of reaching out to, and searching for God. Blindness would be in charge.

Without religion, I suppose some people might be nicer than others, but only because they want to be nice. It really would not matter. We would be just like all of the other animals, only worse. Look around, LOL some are that way now.

I believe God has created us all with knowledge, or a build-in alarm system for moral standards. We abuse it, and neglect it, and it gets numb, unable to function, but I believe it is there.

Good post.

To me, religion is outdated. If God does exist, why the positive connotations? Out thoughts of a higher being are all surrounded by this thought that God, if exists, is some sort of saint. Does a creator necessarily have to be 'God Like' in the sense that we've become accustomed to? Or could he be a bored diety, and our creation is the result of his boredom?

Fact is, we are all animals. Advanced animals, civilized animals yes. But in the end, just another animal. With that said, morality sounds like it's a creation of the mind rather then something built within us.

Oh, really? So then could you tell us why basically selfish creatures like humans, without any outside impetus, would bother to create the concept of altruistic morality, much less adhere to it? To put it bluntly, what benefit is there to me, personally and individually, in being moral?

One immediate benefit is to remain STD free.

 

[Diuretic]

You know religion used to require human sacrifice right?

Some, not all.

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't have to be taught not to show prejudice, nor did I have to be taught that making a woman or a child cry in pain is not music to my ears.

Actually, yes you did, your environment teaches you more than actual books and catch phrases. You learned it by observation of how others behaved around you, so yes you were taught.

I disagree. The instincts some have where that is concerned has never been a part of my life as long as I have been old enough to be able to retain memories.

My parents are prejudice.....but I didn't take on their beliefs. I deplore ganging up on the weak. I tend to side with the oppressed rather then the oppressor. The sound of a woman or a child crying in pain bothers me to the core. There are some who love this sound. Nobody instilled this feeling in my persona. It is the way I have always been.

One could say that sexual attraction to the same sex is a learned passion where as I believe in many cases it is just something that one is born with. Yes there are some who learn it, but not always.

I just think that you can't place this issue in a framework of being black and white. There are always exceptions. It is way too complex for one person to arbitrarily decide that they know everything about it and that they have all of the answers.

I think morals are a lot like language. Children are born with the instinct to communicate verbally, because that is what humans do. The parents then shape that instinct through teaching into the specific language they use for verbal communication. Likewise, I think children are born with an instinct for right and wrong, and their parents then shape and mold the specifics of that according to their personal and societal beliefs.

Children who disagree with or dislike specific things about how their parents communicate - accents or slang, for example - discard it and develop their own specifics to replace them. Likewise, children who disagree with or dislike specific things about their parents interpretation of the instinct for morality - prejudice, for example - discard it and develop their own specifics to replace them.

While I believe there is a basic, universal morality inherent in all humans who aren't actually sociopaths - and perhaps even in them, except that they reject and ignore it - I think it's a general standard and open to interpretation and viewpoint. When you get right down to it, proponents and opponents of the death penalty are really expressing the exact same moral belief: that human life is sacred and valuable. They're simply interpreting it from different perspectives.

 

[Diuretic]

Sontarans love war. So war must be moral.

Sontaran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you trying to imply that Sontarans are like Marines?

No way - I think Sontarans are more like gang-bangers - mindless bastards.

 

[mudwhistle]

You know religion used to require human sacrifice right?

Some, not all.

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

Sacrifice of any kind is not needed since Christ died on the cross.

Abraham, the father of Irael never practiced human sacrifice. The fake sacrifice of his son Isaac was merely a test from God.

Just a historical note.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good post.

To me, religion is outdated. If God does exist, why the positive connotations? Out thoughts of a higher being are all surrounded by this thought that God, if exists, is some sort of saint. Does a creator necessarily have to be 'God Like' in the sense that we've become accustomed to? Or could he be a bored diety, and our creation is the result of his boredom?

Fact is, we are all animals. Advanced animals, civilized animals yes. But in the end, just another animal. With that said, morality sounds like it's a creation of the mind rather then something built within us.

Oh, really? So then could you tell us why basically selfish creatures like humans, without any outside impetus, would bother to create the concept of altruistic morality, much less adhere to it? To put it bluntly, what benefit is there to me, personally and individually, in being moral?

One immediate benefit is to remain STD free.

It's completely possible to remain STD-free without embracing morality as represented by sexual abstinence. And I'm not sure I would define abstaining from sex in order to keep myself healthy as necessarily a moral choice. Certainly it isn't altruistic in any sense.

I am also not talking about morality just in terms of sex. If there is no objective standard of morality imposed by a higher good outside of me, what benefit is there for me in not being completely selfish and thinking only of my own wants and desires? Why should I bother?

 

[Diuretic]

Is that a serious question????

No.......I......won't. Because I was born with the knowledge of right and wrong.

You were a very precocious baby if you were born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Most of us were born with the ability to breathe, suck milk, pee and crap. And most of us had to learn about right and wrong.

I didn't have to be taught not to show prejudice, nor did I have to be taught that making a woman or a child cry in pain is not music to my ears.

Prejudice is a natural instinct in humans. We can never overcome it, we can minimise its effects through education and law.

This reminds me of the remarks by David Foster Wallace that midcan linked to a little while ago, about the two young fish and the older fish. The two young fish are swimming along happily and the older fish greets them, "Morning boys, how's the water?" And the two younger fish look at each other with, "what's water?"

We're like those young fish. We grow up in a moral climate, we breathe it in like we breathe air.

 

[Diuretic]

You know religion used to require human sacrifice right?

Some did. Some didn't. So what?

I think I addressed this in a post a couple of minutes ago, but if I didn't please take it up again and I'll see if I can give a reasonable response.

 

[Diuretic]

you know states used to committ mass genocide right?

Sadly they still do.

But perhaps I should clarify my point.

Take God out the picture, take religion out the picture.

Are all humans built with a sense of morality?

If so, give examples. If so, prove it.

Or is that just faith based as well...

My point is that morality isn't dependent on a god belief or religion.

Some societies worshipped gods which demanded human sacrifice. How did they know that? The priestly caste told them so.

Humans aren't built with a sense of morality. We were able to work out what was good for us and what was bad for us though. We did that without religion or god belief.

Conclusions, like antique beds, should not be jumped upon. And you just turned the whole antique store into a trampoline.

Nice metaphor!

So, where did I go wrong?

 

[Diuretic]

Some, not all.

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

Sacrifice of any kind is not needed since Christ died on the cross.

Abraham, the father of Irael never practiced human sacrifice. The fake sacrifice of his son Isaac was merely a test from God.

Just a historical note.

Christ sacrificed Himself. It's a sort of harkening back to Abraham and Isaac though, I think and even before then. The sacrifice that Christ made as a human is reminiscent of the earlier practices of religions to use human sacrifice to communicate with their gods. Christ's sacrifice is re-created during the Mass, it's hugely symbolic.

I think Abraham lived in a society that practised human sacrifice, not sure of that though. I have no knowledge of Abraham being reported to practise human sacrifice.

My memory of the incident with Isaac though tells me that Abraham would have gone ahead and killed his son in obeying the command of God. It was indeed a test. Abraham passed it, he would have killed his son because his God commanded it. He was directed by God to instead sacrifice the ram caught in the thicket.

For me that's more about the idea of rejecting human sacrifice as part of religious ritual. Perhaps Abraham knew that and from that moment on rejected human sacrifice as part of religious ritual.

It's interesting though that the idea of sacrifice reverberates through Catholicism (can't speak for other denominations) and the iconography of the Catholic church features lots of lambs and blood.

On edit - about cannibalism and human sacrifice - the Catholic ritual of the Eucharist is reminiscent of both.

 

[Care4all]

well, as someone who is religious, I believe we are all born with the sense of what is right and what is wrong, whether the person is religious or not in favor of any religion.... I think we all inherited a conscience from adam and eve....who ate from the tree of the knowledge of the proverbial ''good and evil''....this 'story' in the Bible, refers to just that....we ALL have been born with this ''knowledge, this sense of what is right and what is wrong''.... NOTE! this does not exclude that we may get screwed up along the way and lose this sense of morality....

Good post. It seems that you were thinking of Romans 2:

14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Immie

no, I don't believe i knew of romans 2 saying such....unless i read it and just forgot about it! TY immie! Good verse to know! I just concluded such from the adam and eve story...

But agreeing on this, why does it appear that several Christians on this message board particularly, have indicated that atheists or gentiles do not have morals or morality or know right from wrong, good from evil because they don't have ''religion'', when God specifically told us they did? (This is not necessarily the ones posting in this thread, but on other threads similar to this....)

And also, going way back with discussions we have had on this... I THOUGHT the Law was there to show us sin, and show us how imperfect we were and why we needed the New Covenant with Christ? BUT if the Law was not needed to show us right from wrong, good from evil then that THOUGHT does not necessarily fit now, does it?

Care

 

[Care4all]

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

Sacrifice of any kind is not needed since Christ died on the cross.

Abraham, the father of Irael never practiced human sacrifice. The fake sacrifice of his son Isaac was merely a test from God.

Just a historical note.

Christ sacrificed Himself. It's a sort of harkening back to Abraham and Isaac though, I think and even before then. The sacrifice that Christ made as a human is reminiscent of the earlier practices of religions to use human sacrifice to communicate with their gods. Christ's sacrifice is re-created during the Mass, it's hugely symbolic.

I think Abraham lived in a society that practised human sacrifice, not sure of that though. I have no knowledge of Abraham being reported to practise human sacrifice.

My memory of the incident with Isaac though tells me that Abraham would have gone ahead and killed his son in obeying the command of God. It was indeed a test. Abraham passed it, he would have killed his son because his God commanded it. He was directed by God to instead sacrifice the ram caught in the thicket.

For me that's more about the idea of rejecting human sacrifice as part of religious ritual. Perhaps Abraham knew that and from that moment on rejected human sacrifice as part of religious ritual.

It's interesting though that the idea of sacrifice reverberates through Catholicism (can't speak for other denominations) and the iconography of the Catholic church features lots of lambs and blood.

On edit - about cannibalism and human sacrifice - the Catholic ritual of the Eucharist is reminiscent of both.

that is correct, there was NOT human sacrifice among the jews...this was a test for Abraham and i like your view on the outcome and lesson learned by him....

Besides the fact that if God is the all knowing God, then the ''test'' was not for God to see because He already KNEW what Abraham would do, and what He would do.....which was not make Abraham sacrifice issac...

the test, was for abraham to see, to learn about himself and his relationship and trust in God...

The jews used a Lamb, a pure, white Lamb as their sacrifice for forgiveness of sins....thus the significance of Jesus being our final, once and for all... sacrifice, our Sacrificial Lamb.

care

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, really? So then could you tell us why basically selfish creatures like humans, without any outside impetus, would bother to create the concept of altruistic morality, much less adhere to it? To put it bluntly, what benefit is there to me, personally and individually, in being moral?

One immediate benefit is to remain STD free.

It's completely possible to remain STD-free without embracing morality as represented by sexual abstinence. And I'm not sure I would define abstaining from sex in order to keep myself healthy as necessarily a moral choice. Certainly it isn't altruistic in any sense.

I am also not talking about morality just in terms of sex. If there is no objective standard of morality imposed by a higher good outside of me, what benefit is there for me in not being completely selfish and thinking only of my own wants and desires? Why should I bother?

You wanted to know what benefit...and I gave you one specific benefit.

By the way, love your kitty.

 

[Immanuel]

well, as someone who is religious, I believe we are all born with the sense of what is right and what is wrong, whether the person is religious or not in favor of any religion.... I think we all inherited a conscience from adam and eve....who ate from the tree of the knowledge of the proverbial ''good and evil''....this 'story' in the Bible, refers to just that....we ALL have been born with this ''knowledge, this sense of what is right and what is wrong''.... NOTE! this does not exclude that we may get screwed up along the way and lose this sense of morality....

Good post. It seems that you were thinking of Romans 2:

14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Immie

no, I don't believe i knew of romans 2 saying such....unless i read it and just forgot about it! TY immie! Good verse to know! I just concluded such from the adam and eve story...

But agreeing on this, why does it appear that several Christians on this message board particularly, have indicated that atheists or gentiles do not have morals or morality or know right from wrong, good from evil because they don't have ''religion'', when God specifically told us they did? (This is not necessarily the ones posting in this thread, but on other threads similar to this....)

And also, going way back with discussions we have had on this... I THOUGHT the Law was there to show us sin, and show us how imperfect we were and why we needed the New Covenant with Christ? BUT if the Law was not needed to show us right from wrong, good from evil then that THOUGHT does not necessarily fit now, does it?

Care

The first question about God specifically telling us that they do have the Law: Read the verse. It does not say "all Gentiles", it says that Gentiles who do by nature things required of the law. There are many people who do not know God yet know enough to know that killing another human being is wrong... but then you have the few who don't know that.

Why are there some Christians who claim atheists are immoral because they don't have God's law? Are you trying to get me in trouble with those Christians? Thanks a lot!

I'm not really sure how to answer that question. Why do some Christians seem to think that God hates homosexuals and would never find a place in his heart to forgive a homosexual? Maybe it is simply a complete misunderstanding of what the Law was really designed for?

Galations 3:21-25

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

As to your final question about the Law leading us to Christ... see the above quote. I'm not quite sure that I understand your question. Who said the law was not needed to lead us to Christ? My understanding is that God wrote the Law in our hearts. The Law that you read in the Scriptures is only the written form of the Law. God also gave us a conscience which is nothing more than the law placed in our innermost beings leading us towards our savior.

Immie

 

[Intense]

To me death is a release, as well as a blessing, to most people, so I don't agree with the law as it is religiously, but I abide by it thanks to my atheist father. My religious belief shows that death is not only something to not fear, but that it is a glorious transition when you finally get to finish your destiny, for while you live your destiny shall remain incomplete. Again, morality is subjective, my religion also teaches that the only truly horrible sin is to steal or lie, those two things are guaranteed to prevent you from completing your destiny as Anpu shall not let you enter the under world (heaven) if you have guilt in your heart (if it weighs more than a feather). It also teaches that the law of the land is the law you obey, again the heart and feather thing come into play there. The native American history I don't know as much about, other than small amounts of their religious traditions. Before I chose my religion I studied many, most just small amounts of, the ancient ones (pre-christianity) I studied more on because they intrigued me the most. One finding that lead me to the Ancient Egyptians was that their myths seemed to be mirrored everywhere, even most of the christian ones (look up Imhotep for the Jesus story ), and since it was one of the few first religions that meant something to me. Their pantheon is also more believable, Ptah at the very top as creator of all but who just watches everything from his place, Rya as the "father" of the world who just makes sure everything runs smoothly and sets the laws for the other gods, on down to Anpu who guards the gates of the under world and judges the souls of all who enter. It's a rich religion, complex and simple at the same time, and leaves a lot of room for science. My personal belief is that one day we can all become gods, that our destinies are actually lessons to teach us how to be gods of our own worlds. But morality doesn't befit a god, though laws are important enough that we must learn to follow them.

The weight of a feather reminds me of the necessity of letting go. When you let go, there is no weight. Easier said than done, granted. Conscience being the Guide, We All are here overcoming Our Own obstacles, hopefully, developing into being whole or complete. I have never failed to feel God's presence, I have never been alone in that sense, yet that feeling tells me where I am wrong, or at fault. Sometimes for Us things are clear, sometimes things need to be untangled, unlocked, or untied. We usually don't get it, but there is an order to the Universe. Like that little drop from the Ocean Returns, on God's Terms to it, so do We return to Our Maker. My perspective is of God, a part of God, not Separate but Equal. Who has been there and returned with Instructions? What does it matter in the Whole of things? What is It's relevance to Us Here?
I believe in Purpose and Principle. I believe in Resolution and Development, and Improvement.

That is an apt addition. Guilt isn't blame other people place on you, but blame you place on yourself. It is possible to shed guilt through "forgiveness", but the guilt you feel from lies and theft weighs people down the most and is the toughest to shed. However, it must be a true lie to give you guilt, simply not knowing doesn't make it a lie.

But as I said, it's all subjective. Just obey the law of the land, since that's something you have to anyway.

Conscience and Reconciliation. Subjective Perspective is of the Highest Regard. Exactly why I am Suspect of Any Society that want's to beat the Self out of Each One of Us. That's even where Atheist's like Ayn Rand score High. Recognizing when the Society tries to lay claim to Conscience, something It has no Right to. Those Laws We do not follow. Each One of Us does Matter, sometimes in ways that have yet to be revealed.

My Root is Christian. I've had Close Friends of Various other Religions, finding Harmony and forms of Communion is real. I do believe that there is a destination many of Us are headed, though Our points of Origin are varied, the Process of Refining, Transforms Us into something not yet achieved, All part of the design.

 

[Intense]

You know religion used to require human sacrifice right?

Some, not all.

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

What happens to the general account of History when possible Schizophrenia is added into the equation?

 

[Intense]

Some, not all.

True. It's interesting to see how various religions moved away from human sacrifice. I remember reading somewhere that the Hebraic story of Abraham and Isaac was a pointer to just that, that human sacrifice was no longer necessary. I don't know of any contemporary religions that require human sacrifice. I would think that would be illegal in most states.

But the point still stands that religion used to require human sacrifice in some religions. So in that religion, in that culture, in that society, human sacrifice was seen as being moral. Religion has a strong influence on us as humans, any act can be deemed moral if those in powerful religious positions say it is.

Sacrifice of any kind is not needed since Christ died on the cross.

Abraham, the father of Irael never practiced human sacrifice. The fake sacrifice of his son Isaac was merely a test from God.

Just a historical note.

Possibly, even probably. Someone other than You made that original determination. Do you know factually what was behind it, or through Faith?