ERayR Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 The question is still what is a positive vs. negative outcome; is it something God decides or is God God because of a willingness to obey principles that consistently lead to positive outcomes. That is my belief.
ERayR Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 One can be moral simply by adhering to correct or divine principals, whether they're aware of it or not and whether they believe in God or not. That is true but it does not answer the question: Does it emanate from God or is it an outside principle he uses?
MiserereNobis Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 What I find interesting is that like the belief in God, belief in moral principles cannot be justified by objective evidence, yet every atheist affirms them That is inconsistent. If one believes that only beliefs can be true if there is objective evidence for them, moral beliefs cannot be true So atheists who believe both propositions are inconsistent. What is even more inconsistent is the idea "beliefs can be true only if there is objective evidence for them." Where is the objective evidence for that belief? In one swoop it attempts to negate subjective evidence (which is the realm of the personal experience of God) without having any objective reason to do so. Such is flatland. 2
MiserereNobis Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Unless its a moral fart! Good thing I only have venial farts, or I'd have to spend way more time in the confessional 2
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Good thing I only have venial farts, or I'd have to spend way more time in the confessional All of a sudden I love Catholics a little more :-)
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Don't really have time to get into this one but recommend serious questioners Google "Richard Joyce evolution of morality" Morality might have evolved, but it is God given. No conflict there. Moral behavior BOTH makes us happy- and so is part of the plan of happiness- and so also makes us live longer and make more babies which grow up happy. It is just pragmatically true. Morality works, period. It works as well for atheists as religious people. At its basis is the affirmation of life over behaviors which lead toward death. Simple! 1
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Don't really have time to get into this one but recommend serious questioners Google "Richard Joyce evolution of morality" Morality might have evolved, but it is God given. No conflict there. Moral behavior BOTH makes us happy- and so is part of the plan of happiness- and so also makes us live longer and make more babies which grow up happy. It is just pragmatically true. Morality works, period. It works as well for atheists as religious people. At its basis is the affirmation of life over behaviors which lead toward death. Simple! Just dont tell Rob Osborn over in the other thread. You used "God", "Evolution" and "no conflict" in the same post. 1
Flyonthewall Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 To answer such a question, I look at the animal kingdom. While animals will group together for the good of the herd/pack/colony etc, there is nothing stopping them from doing anything to anyone or thing outside of that group. They can demonstrate behavior that humans would call "moral", but also demonstrate extremely brutal and savage behavior too.
Calm Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 All of a sudden I love Catholics a little more :-)He is making me laugh too much today and since I pulled a rib muscle with the flu the day before, it is killing me. 2
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 He is making me laugh too much today and since I pulled a rib muscle with the flu the day before, it is killing me. Holy Crap!! you are almost at 40K posts. impressive!
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 What is even more inconsistent is the idea "beliefs can be true only if there is objective evidence for them." Where is the objective evidence for that belief? In one swoop it attempts to negate subjective evidence (which is the realm of the personal experience of God) without having any objective reason to do so. Such is flatland.Abso-flippin-luteely! That's a technical philosophical term. Uh oh. Now you are going to use this to show that I believe in Absolute Truth, right? 2
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Holy Crap!! I have always found that a difficult concept to grasp. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God? If so what is its source? Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there? Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife?Good question,Prior to Christianity, The world was offen led by dictators, with few rules about social behavior. One thing that strengthens current obedience, is a Christian Worldview. It will not be long before there will be fewer men and woman of faith. Right now it holds the worldview, when the evil outnumbers the good, then Christ will come. If the wicked begin to push their agenda and Christian Worldview, remains silent, then evil goes forth without opposition, then God will hold Christians as wicked as the same. (To Paraphrase) All that has to happen for wickedness to grow, is for good men to do nothing.
Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Which again contradicts the D&C which talks about us being coeternal with God.Take that for what you will... we just dont know enough to have more than a speculative conversation about it.Please don't attribute your ignorance to all of us.The fact is that there is a God and we are because we are as etetnal as he is. It's a very simple idea and I'm sure you could understand it if you tried with a little more of your intelligence.
MiserereNobis Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Abso-flippin-luteely! That's a technical philosophical term. Uh oh. Now you are going to use this to show that I believe in Absolute Truth, right? Man, I must have missed that term on one of my philosophy finals! And yes, for months I've been plotting how to sneakily and slyly lead you down the path that ends in Absolute Truth (I'm so glad you used capital letters...)
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Please don't attribute your ignorance to all of us.The fact is that there is a God and we are because we are as etetnal as he is. It's a very simple idea and I'm sure you could understand it if you tried with a little more of your intelligence.It always helps to not make spelling errors while telling someone else he's stupid.
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Man, I must have missed that term on one of my philosophy finals! And yes, for months I've been plotting how to sneakily and slyly lead you down the path that ends in Absolute Truth (I'm so glad you used capital letters...) Yeah but I deliberately left out the "v" in TRVTH just to be rebellious. 1
MiserereNobis Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It always helps to not make spelling errors while telling someone else he's stupid. Perhaps etetnal is another technical philosophical term? Something to do with being beyond the Vietnamese lunar new year?
Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It always helps to not make spelling errors while telling someone else he's stupid.I'm also sure he has enough intelligence to understand what I meant even with my spelling errors. With my big fingers on a teeny tiny keyboard I have enough trouble getting any word text typed correctly.
Freedom Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It is not immoral to drink alcohol. It is immoral to a) drink in a manner that harms b) drink against the instruction of God. Otherwise, there can be no immorality in it, at least according to any definition of moral.True morals are NOT relative. Societal morals ARE relative. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. As Joseph said, "whatever God requires is right" and therefore moral. And since God operates exclusively according to eternal law, our moral compass comes from eternal law.the definition of moral is as follows: capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct, concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct. If the conduct is not allowed, it is by its very nature immoral. It is the distinction between right and wrong. If drinking alcohol is wrong, it is immoral. It it is not wrong to drink alcohol, it is moral. so yes, morality is very much relative. It was not immoral 200 years ago to deprive women the right to vote, today it is. 200 years ago it was moral to deprive gays of equal rights, today it is not. In the LDS church, it could be argued that we all follow the same morals, therefore within mormonism, there are standards of moral and immoral; however these standards do not always apply to non-mormons. Having lived among many different cultures, I have come to realize that moral standards vary greatly on may issues. Are there some absolute morals that all people agree on? Perhaps, but even this depends on the circumstances. There are practices we have today that we consider highly moral that, 100 years from now, we will look back upon in horror. Some of our morals are dependent upon our economic status. Today, it is immoral in North America to have unsafe work environments. 300 years ago when worker safety was not possible to the degree it is today, it was not considered immoral to put a worker in grave danger likely to result in his death. the moral standards of safety today, of course, will change as more technology comes into play. Or, perhaps it will change for the worse if we experience economic or political upheaval.
jaxenro Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) "For example, answer this question - is it immoral to drink alcohol?" You sound like a bunch of lawyers haggling over the details and ignoring the principles. What principles are at stake in drinking alcohol? Let me propose two situations and you answer for me: You are a pilot with 300 passengers and you and the co-pilot decide to split a fifth of bourbon in the cockpit - is this moral or immoral? Is the principle drinking alcohol or the safety of passengers under the pilots care? You are in an isolated area and suffer an injury and the doctor needs to operate without anesthesia. He recommends drinking alcohol to deaden the pain and allow your body to survive the operation - is this moral or immoral? Is the principle drinking alcohol or the preservation of life? Situations may change but the underlying moral principles often remain constant when examined in context. What are being hed up here as examples of morality changing are for the most part not. I don't want to pull each and every one but try not to look so much at the specific action (like drinking alcohol) but the underlying reason or principle behind the morality of the action Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro
jaxenro Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 "While animals will group together for the good of the herd/pack/colony etc, there is nothing stopping them from doing anything to anyone or thing outside of that group.They can demonstrate behavior that humans would call "moral", but also demonstrate extremely brutal and savage behavior too." Exactly what I was getting at on my first two principle posts. Morality initially existed within the human "pack" or social group and we can see that from using Biblical examples (as history not scripture) but I will take it to the next level (say 2,000 years ago instead of 3,000) when I get some time
Bikeemikey Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I have always found that a difficult concept to grasp. Yeah but your only coming up on 20K posts - that comment was for a 40K poster :-)
jchristopher Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 So the only reason you live a moral life is the hope of an afterlife? If an afterlife is not real you will all of a sudden decide to act contrary to the morals you currently hold? Im sorry but most humans are not motivated by reinforcement that comes the same day... now i'm meant to be motivated by reinforcement that comes after I die? The idea that an afterlife will have a significant impact on my action today, compared to reinforcement that will impact my life today, is quite ridiculous. Hence the quip that ive always heard as credited to Brigham Young: that a religion that can help us in this life cant save us in the next. Cant find the source but that is the general gist of it... is this mormon rumor mill or can anyone confirm there is a BY quote kinda like this? Morality is intricately intertwined with the laws of God. I live a moral life because I know it will bring me and those around me the most peace and happiness. I also live morally so that I can prepare myself for eternal life. I know that that same spirit which does possess my body at the time I go out of this life will have power to possess my body the eternal world. Morality requires effort and self-mastery because we are always being tempted by the adversary and his followers, both seen and unseen, to disobey God's laws. To live morally, we must cling to the word of God. Morality can not be brought to pass unless we are enticed by the one or the other.
USU78 Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I have always found that a difficult concept to grasp.
Recommended Posts