|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th November 2012, 09:43 AM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
.
Those changes in the commandments... as in Deuteronomy, "kill all the Amelhekites".. right after "Thou shalt not kill" do not come from a "higher authority", but from crazy hated filled old men. All of them. In every religion. God, whichever one is yours, is muter than the Tar Baby and needs psychotics to pass on his commands. |
6th November 2012, 09:43 AM | #42 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
From the perspective of there not being a God, this would have to be true. I don't personally believe in subjective/evolving morality myself, but It's not really a topic one can argue without first proving their is an objective source of morality. Even though I personally believe such a source exists, it's not something one can scientifically prove, i.e. can't prove the existence of God.
|
6th November 2012, 09:50 AM | #43 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
wrong thread. deleted.
|
6th November 2012, 09:50 AM | #44 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
But then that means murder itself isn't either right or wrong. It simply means that right=doing what you are told and wrong=not doing what you are told. There is no longer any absolute right or wrong as it applies to, well, anything. It is no longer possible to say "murder is wrong". At best, all you can say is, "Murder without permission or forgiveness is wrong", which leads to people murdering each other, then claiming "God told me to" or "God will forgive me". If you want to reduce right and wrong to simple obedience and disobedience, well, why pretend they are absolutes? |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
6th November 2012, 09:51 AM | #45 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
See my response to Foster Zygote about the continuum. I don't actually put them on the same continuum. I see what is right/wrong as independent of what is acceptable/not acceptable to society. This of course if from the perspective of someone who does believe in God. I acknowledge that without this personal bias they are really the same continuum.
After reading many of the responses it has become very clear that this type of discussion is extremely difficult since all of us come loaded with different definitions of the same terms based on our experiences. |
6th November 2012, 09:53 AM | #46 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
|
6th November 2012, 09:59 AM | #47 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
That's absurd. They fear immediate punishment, not eternal damnation. This is obvious by the way they act.
Quote:
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
6th November 2012, 10:03 AM | #48 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
Well that is an interesting question in and of itself. First let me give context that I do believe that humans have basic rights, and what I say next should not be construed as anything more than discussing the point.
If we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves that gives us rights, then what rights do any of us really have? How can one believe in inherent rights without believing that those rights have been given to us by someone/something? Why do I have any more rights than what society currently deems that I have? |
6th November 2012, 10:11 AM | #49 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I agree with you up to the puppet part, it does mean that some things are arbitrarily "right" or "wrong" depending on if God currently says it is or not. I do personally believe in God, but I also believe there are eternal laws and absolute truths that apply to even God himself. I personally believe that whatever God decides is "right" or "wrong" at the time is indeed subject to these eternal laws/absolute truths. I don't believe this makes God a puppet though any more than we are puppets to the laws of nature. I don't believe God can break the laws of the universe, I just think he knows them better than we do
|
6th November 2012, 10:16 AM | #50 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I want to reiterate that I am not asserting that you cannot be a good person if you don't believe in God or in the context of believing in God, believing in the "right" God.
While it is true that some people who claim to follow a moral authority are often very unkind this is true of all mankind. Whether religious or not there are people who are, to put it bluntly, ********. |
6th November 2012, 10:19 AM | #51 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
|
6th November 2012, 10:21 AM | #52 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Just curious then, when you say "somethings are arbitrarily 'right' or 'wrong'", that implies that there are other things that aren't arbitrary. Can you give an example of one of these "eternal laws/absolute truths"? The murder example has already been shown to be relative, not absolute. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
6th November 2012, 10:30 AM | #53 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th November 2012, 10:32 AM | #54 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
Actually I have not read about the Euthyphro dilemma before. That's an interesting question/dilemma. In my opinion, I would say that for any given instance it could be either or.
As to the murder example, I don't think I really know how to say where I believe that line is. I do believe murder is wrong and morally so, not just that it's bad for myself/society. However, I'm not against capital punishment, which some see as murder. So, I don't know that I can articulate what makes me decide one thing is murder but another isn't. And yes, I think what constitutes murder has changed over time and is substantially different for various societies. |
6th November 2012, 10:33 AM | #55 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 936
|
Our very own jreffer David Wong has a great article that touches on this subject:
Embrace The Horror |
__________________
All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for intelligent men to do nothing. |
|
6th November 2012, 10:38 AM | #56 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,437
|
|
6th November 2012, 10:42 AM | #57 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I actually am rather religious, but my query was an honest one (not a bait attempt). I've had the discussion with people, but never with anyone that isn't religious as well or just doesn't care. I wanted to see how the assertion would hold up under scrutiny and it has actually caused me to think very carefully about assumptions I've made about how the terms "right" and "wrong" are used.
I disagree that religion by definition wants you to close your mind. Even in my religion I've been taught from a young age to reason things out for myself and to come to my own conclusions, to learn things for myself. This is taught by my religion, not just by my parents. Obviously my religion has a particular bias about what the correct conclusions are but we are still encouraged to get there (or not) on our own. Also, I don't think people are inherently bad. I think that people are actually inherently good and are taught bad behaviors (with some exceptions...some people just seem to be rotten). |
6th November 2012, 10:48 AM | #58 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
While there are some people like this, I don't think this applies to religious people in general. If I did not believe in god, I know that I would do certain things that I don't do now, but I'm pretty sure that most or all of what I would do is not wrong by society's standards.
Sometimes I wonder if people who say things like Kent Hovind literally mean what they say or if they're using an extreme example to make the point that without a defining source of morality, there really is no morality, only what you can or can't get away with. |
6th November 2012, 10:54 AM | #59 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
|
6th November 2012, 10:59 AM | #60 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 715
|
We have rights because we (meaning everybody involved) conceived of them, declared them to be so, fought for them, and/or had them enshrined them in law.
These rights (usually) underpin society's concept of justice and/or morality. And sometimes override society's concept of justice and/or morality to protect the interests of an individual (for example - the right to an abortion). There is no need to invoke an omniscient entity to justify these rights. Neither is it necessary to wonder where they came from. We already know where they came from. As for wanting some reason to believe in them...why not decide for yourself whether or not such rights are worthwhile? Why do you need a fictional entity to feel justified in supporting them? You (quite clearly) have a brain. Use it. Maybe you'll even find a flaw, resolve it, assert it publically, and contribute to the future evolution of human rights. |
__________________
I've been called a "Big Thinker", but curiously, only by people with a lisp. |
|
6th November 2012, 11:12 AM | #61 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
Given that you cannot speak directly to God even if He does exist then you don't have a source of moral authority regardless - you have either your own opinion or the opinion of someone else.
The only real question is how we should come to agreement on which opinion makes sense for society. |
6th November 2012, 11:13 AM | #62 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
It's not a matter of "proof". We are not talking about a maths equation. The relevant issue is "evidence". All known evidence shows that every single discovery and explanation ever found by objective science, is completely contrary to claims of a supernatural God. So there’s an absolutely vast amount of evidence. Literally a trillion billion scientific discoveries and explanations. And every single one of them contradicts claims of any God |
6th November 2012, 11:14 AM | #63 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th November 2012, 11:17 AM | #64 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I don't think it presupposes that everyone is a sociopath at all. For me the implications are less on what people will do if they don't believe in God (again, I think people are inherently good) and more the hypocritical stances of many people regarding rights/morality.
Really this brings me to what I think was part of the reason I had this discussion with some people in the first place. Take the topic of homosexual marriage. Many people, mostly religious, are opposed to homosexual couples being allowed to marry. Many people are not. What I find entirely hypocritical are the people who at the same time a) claim there is no moral authority, morality is subjective and b) that the people who are opposed to homosexual marriage are "wrong". (Yes there are hypocrites on both sides, I am merely talking about one particular instance that applies to this conversation). It becomes completely apparent in their attitudes and statements that they don't just disagree with people who are against homosexual marriage but actually see them as immoral people denying them their rights. Well if morality and what is right/wrong is subjective to the whims of society and evolution, then people are being completely hypocritical in doing anything more than disagreeing with the other side's stance. Implying they are somehow wrong, bad, or denying some sort of right they have is contradictory to believing in a subjective morality. It's not actually wrong for them to be denied marriage until society as a whole decides it is. This is not an argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to be married, it's just an example of why I started thinking about this topic so much in the first place. |
6th November 2012, 11:18 AM | #65 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th November 2012, 11:21 AM | #66 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th November 2012, 11:21 AM | #67 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
Once I know how to word it properly I will probably have to qualify my OP some more because it has become apparent to me that the way I was using "right" and "wrong" in my original post actually presupposes the existence of God in the first place.
Scientifically speaking, I don't think there is any way to to even show there is a subjective moral authority that exists, let alone get everyone to agree to it. |
6th November 2012, 11:31 AM | #68 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Ah, now your questions make a lot more sense. Part of the problem is that there are two definitions of "wrong" in this case: a personal opinion as to what is right and wrong, and the public opinion. It isn't hypocrisy, just a conflict in usage. To use a less loaded example, I believe eating bacon is "right", however, many cultures feel it is "wrong". In this case, both statements can be true in that my personal morality allows the eating of bacon, but laws in other places may not. In this case, if I were to move to a certain Muslim country, it would be in my best personal interest to accept the cultural "wrong" and abstain from bacon. The other option would be to convince the Muslims, using reason and science, that the eating of bacon is "right", so that my personal morality and the cultural morality once again align. That is essentially what is happening with the topic of same-sex marriage, and it appears that in most Western nations, the cultural morality is indeed changing. This is why I believe there is no such thing as a higher notion of right and wrong. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
6th November 2012, 11:32 AM | #69 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
I don't see any hypocrisy there. It's entirely possible to consider there is no absolute supernatural source of morality and yet consider those people who oppose homosexual marriage as 'wrong' - I am such a person.
First off, consider the reasoning behind the argument. 'Because God says so' is not a sound argument, particularly when you consider that not only does God not exist, but even if He did exist there's no reason to compel others to follow his instructions. Second, consider the motivation for the argument. It boils down to little more than a dislike of homosexuals. Third consider the result of the argument. It denies people rights and causes real harm to them. So we have a group of people causing harm to others for no good reason other than a dislike of their bedroom practices. I can call that wrong and nasty and immoral without the need for any supernatural entity to help me. |
6th November 2012, 11:34 AM | #70 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
Well, a lot of what is "right" or "wrong" is probably not absolute in the eternal scheme of things, you're right. For some reason I cannot find the edit button for my OP, so I can't add to it for people coming later to the conversation.
Basically, I do realize now that my premise presupposes the existence of God and the "God says so" definitions of "right" and "wrong" (not surprisingly, even though I was trying to avoid it). |
6th November 2012, 11:42 AM | #71 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
So, societies that don't have the Christian god have no morality? Really? That's silly. Most of the planet is NOT Christian. So, by your position, they are all immoral. It's either that or ANY belief in ANY god is better than none, which reduces it back to human wishful thinking.
Morality is not dependent on belief in any god. Buddhist are among the most moral group of people I know, and they don't believe in your Christian torture pit. |
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
6th November 2012, 11:48 AM | #72 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
Outside of my religious context, I think I will be hard pressed to give you an example of something I consider an absolute truth I just don't have enough of an understanding in any field of science to make any scientific based claim that something is absolutely true. So no, I cannot.
|
6th November 2012, 11:57 AM | #73 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
I hope you didn't read what I said to be that we don't have inherent rights, I believe we do.
My point is that if rights are completely societally driven, then you can't say someone has any rights that they have not already been given. If rights are defined on a societal level, then who are we to impose our views on another society. We claim that some country or culture is denying x or y group their basic human rights or what have you, but if their society doesn't see them as basic human rights, then what society do they belong to that we can claim they are denying some agreed upon rights? Mankind in general? I guess that's about the only fallback point we can go to, but then we have to prove that the majority of mankind believes that x or y is actually a right. Otherwise we're just projecting our opinion on the masses. ETA: Like I said, I do believe in basic human rights and I personally believe that presented the question the majority of humankind would also agree. So even on that level, God aside, I think mankind agrees on certain human rights in general. I'm not playing devil's advocate per say, I'm just trying to get some good clarification on where people believe these rights come from. |
6th November 2012, 12:03 PM | #74 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
Sadly, this seems to be the religious mindset that somehow this is all about asserting your position more forcefully than the alternative.
An alternative approach would be to convince the masses that your position is superior via evidence, sound logical argument and discussion. If you can't back your position up with any of these things then maybe it isn't worthy of foisting on others? |
6th November 2012, 12:06 PM | #75 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
|
6th November 2012, 12:08 PM | #76 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th November 2012, 12:11 PM | #77 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 30
|
It just doesn't make sense for rights to be defined on an individual level (meaning by the individual for the individual), that would lead to anarchy. Otherwise a person might decide they have the "right" to take whatever they want or the "right" to kill. If I am allowed to decide what my rights are on my own, then my rights are whatever I want.
|
6th November 2012, 12:12 PM | #78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
6th November 2012, 12:19 PM | #79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
.
One might go to "created in His image", and look at the long proven line of evolution that generated humans. With all the design faults all humans have. The evidence for a lack of the need for a creator goes all the way back to the Big Bang, which like all scientific thought can be modified or found to be in error. Where in the natural course of things would a soul be inserted into emerging humanity? Why only humans? Is the soul nothing more than a thought that becomes a useful tool to scare people into behaving the way someone wants them too, usually for the benefit of the soul inventor? |
6th November 2012, 12:28 PM | #80 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
Yes. And you will find that asserting some of those rights leads you to conflict with other people. And if you have an ounce of self-awareness, you realize that other people might take the same approach. So you start thinking about what the implications would be if each person thought of their rights the same way you do. So then you start thinking about rights that each person should have, whether that person is you or someone else, and develop your concept of rights that way.
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|