I am not asking you, I am f*****g telling you! Fantasy based

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, then what is right and what is wrong?

Outside of the existence of God, I personally believe my survival by any means necessary is of the highest priority in the universe. While I will help others, it is only when it does not interfere with my own person survival and comfort. So if I have to steal, I will steal. If I have to kill someone, I will do so. When push comes to shove, you will be the one who's shoved, not me, unless you are stronger.

What is there to tell me I am wrong? Laws? Paper. It's only "wrong" if I get caught.

It's not about illustrating morality it's about defining what it actually is.

Religions didn't start with morality as we know it, but morality is a social code and religions were part of being in a society until recently.

Morality doesn't come from religion though, it comes from our own minds. Group behavior and living in this environment together which requires a social code indicative of morality. It is seen in intelligent animal, biologist call it proto-morality. It may not be reconcilable as human ethic, but plays the same role in those groups.

I guess what I'm getting at is any law/rule is only as effective as the punishment for breaking it is.

Whether you believe in a Hell or a divine punishment or not, the fear of that dwarves any fear of imprisonment or execution for people who do.

The only way rules work is if people are afraid to break them.

I think people in groups tend to come up with a moral code that allows them to thrive. Personally I like the Christian and Buddhist approaches to civility. They allow for societal success without a lot of fighting. But as was said above, these are constructs of human minds. We have to figure out right and wrong ourselves. And answer to the criminal code if our behaviour is disruptive to civility. If there is a superior being, which there probably is in this vast universe, I doubt we concern it.

So then essentially you agree with me. There IS no morality (outside of a god). If it's for all of us to decide ourselves, I am not immoral by taking what belongs to you if I feel I need or want it.

I'm not saying I'd do that indiscriminately, but if I did, who could tell me I was "wrong".

Yes....they are constructs of human minds. I believe wholeheartedly in that (because I'm an agnostic/atheist.

But they are also part and parcel of the religions mentioned. They provide a basis for the religions.

I would say that it is wrong to steal. Not because a deity told us so, but rather because it is intrinsically wrong. It is a violation of another person's right to their belongings. I would say it is wrong even if you are not caught. You may never be punished for it but you still wronged another person. You made them suffer and added to the negative nature of humanity.

I don't think that morality is only based on punishment.

Fear and coercion is what you are talking about.

Even if you believe in hell, just becuase you fear punishment, doesn't mean you believe in the rule. You just know it is not acceptable.

However secularism hasn't actually brought about moral decline. On the contrary. We are more humane an less violent. Religion payed are role in our formation of societies, but it not something strictly necessary anymore.

Many moral code are based on empathy. You could say if anything there is tug of war between the fear based approach and the empathy based approach.

It is reflected in the history of Judaeo-Christianity.

My opinion of early Christianity is it was more of a political movement then a religious one. It was trying to make religion more humane, and challenge the power structure like the Romans and local rulers. I would argue by using clever subversive propaganda. Religion and society were synonymous back then, so it was the only way of achieving political change.

It is not just the approaches that are different but the morality as well. This is early movement, well before all the other additions, i.e before Paul and all the other disparate works.

I understand what you are saying. I personally agree to some extent. But it still doesn't make it a "moral" not to steal. I'm only saying something cannot be declared universally wrong if there isn't a universal definition of what right is. And my argument is only a creator god can dictate that absolute. We can push our views of right and wrong around from group to group, but it's still going to be relative because none of us can force those opinions into existence as an absolute rule. A creator god can.

It's moral not to steal--but the impetus not to steal is not necessarily moral.

Believing in the rule is irrelevant. Only bringing about compliance matters. In a Christian context this is untrue. Which is why faith is the single most important factor- that believing in the rule you refer to. However in a secular context, one's individual views or motivations are irrelevant provided they adhere to the rule.



We are less violent TODAY then we were in years past? I am simply not seeing that. I mean in recent American history, things were far less violent 50, 100 years ago then they are today on a day to day basis. We;re more exposed to violence through our entertainments then ever before. Even in the Colusseum days you had to actually show up to watch. You couldn't just sit on the couch and watch endless hours of simulated torture if you chose like you can today. I don't think we are more humane either. We have better masks and know how to wear them better. I believe most people's show of morals to be almost completely fabricated out of fear of social ostracization and/or legal punishment. If our organized law structures all fell apart tomorrow, most of this morality would disappear almost instantly.



I agree that there is clearly a divide between what you call empathetic morality and fear-based morality. That's a primary reason I am actually an ex Christian and not an active one. It can be quite confusing for them to exist together.

Naturally I disagree with your opinion on the motives behind early Christianity. No point in debating that bit. Nothing I can say would satisfy you, and nothing you can say would satisfy me there.

I believe the Gospels were not all empathy. People forget that Christ spoke of Hell more than anyone else in the Bible. His warnings were very dire warnings. People quote love thy neighbor and all that stuff. But where's depart form me I never knew thee?

If anything, Pauls letters were the MOST empathetic in the New Testament. Others, like James and Hebrews were very fear based. Admittedly, very confusing concepts. Enough to understand why people are so quick to rule the whole thing out.

Says who. That's the point. Just because people agree on things, even if it's a lot of people, doesn't make it right.

I still believe it's moral not to harm another person. I'm not budging from that position.

I don't care about technicalities. I care about feelings.

Humans need fantasy. Two of the things humans do an awful lot are narrative and metaphor.

First, we tell stories, and the stories have meaning to us, help us convey meaning (meaning is inescapable; there is little more meaningful than meaninglessness). Second, we use metaphor constantly, often without realising it.

There's fun to be had in watching the resolute hardcore atheist scientist sort get entranced by their narratives and metaphors.

I'm not so sure. I think our morality springs from something inside of us and that religious stories are a way to illustrate what we already know. It's not a matter of force. It's in our nature.

It kind of does.

Suppose the Bible is a fib, and there's no God. Where, then, did morality come from to end up in there?

I think morality is inescapable. I think it arises (amongst other things) from our awareness of each other as separate but social beings, from an intuition, if you will, of the golden rule.

I also think the difficulty comes not so much in discerning what is right and wrong, but that there is often more than one right response for a given situation. There are competing moral claims.

I think basic notions of morality become reified and (literally) set in stone. They come to seem something that is 'out there', but in a way that is hard to make sense of without having a God or cosmiscism to hang them on. I don't think objective/subjective are useful ways to look at morality, but rather the hangover of an assumption that doesn't really bear out.