Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Annik]

I'm sure this has evolved along with our brains, but The Golden Rule is a pretty good way to decide. I can tell you the an infant's/child's brain is not formed enough to make moral choices without input from social cues. If you refer back to Kohlberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...velopment_), it becomes more apparent how a child develops morally.

I believe ethics is more a question of philosophy, just like moral codes. But you're getting away from the core question, we don't have a moral intuition, we have a burning need to be accepted, thus (as children) we conform to moral norms until we are old enough to understand the implications of our actions, ect.

Why should a person follow the golden rule?

Empathy.

[Mystic]

A simple answer: If morality was fully innate, it would be consistent, universal and unchanging,but it isn't so it ain't.

I agree with the first part, but I say it is (but it's God's light), and we have relationship to it, but we twist from it. That's the reason why people condemn people whom do things that twist severely from it.

---

Why should a person follow the golden rule?

Empathy.

Ok fair enough. Why should a person be empathetic?

[Jackalope]

Wait a minute, you are saying because I can't define knowledge, I don't know what knowledge is. This is not fair. Knowledge is when I know something. I know what it means to know something. I just can't define it.

I can't define religion but I can still know what religion is.

Not exactly, and I think I was not as clear as I could have been, and your objection I think illustrates how amorphous the meaning of the word "know(ledge)" can be.

You say you know what religion is. Do you? I have no doubt that you recognize it when you see it, that you believe you know when you see it. That satisfies one of the three criteria under the Platonic definition. If your belief is true, that satisfies the second. It is the third (justification) that trips you up. Can you clearly and rationally justify to yourself that your belief is true? Can you demonstrate the justification of that to another? Without a clear enough definition of what it is you're attempting to demonstrate, I do not think you can do so.

Here's a simple example:

2 + 3 = 5

That is a true arithmetic equation. Assume you believe it to be true. Can you claim it as personal knowledge if you are unable to quantify the terms 2, 3, and 5?

[Annik]

Well, empathy is an emotion. People without empathy are referred to as sociopaths.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I agree with the first part, but I say it is (but it's God's light), and we have relationship to it, but we twist from it.

How nice for you.I'll be thrilled to agree immediately you begin by proving the existence of God. Otherwise,making such a claim on an atheist forum just makes you look like a fool.

[Mystic]

Well, empathy is an emotion. People without empathy are referred to as sociopaths.

Ok, why should you give in to empathy as opposed to not caring and being selfish?

---

I'll be thrilled to agree immediately you begin by proving the existence of God.

We had threads on that though.

[Annik]

Well, empathy is an emotion. People without empathy are referred to as sociopaths.

Ok, why should you give in to empathy as opposed to not caring and being selfish?

People are pretty connected to their emotions. Like I said, we can see what happens when empathy isn't developed in sociopaths. Furthermore, in addition to empathy, children have to be taught right from wrong, so empathy is not the whole of morality. It is more like a base block or a foundation to build on.

[Mystic]

Wait a minute, you are saying because I can't define knowledge, I don't know what knowledge is. This is not fair. Knowledge is when I know something. I know what it means to know something. I just can't define it.

I can't define religion but I can still know what religion is.

Not exactly, and I think I was not as clear as I could have been, and your objection I think illustrates how amorphous the meaning of the word "know(ledge)" can be.

You say you know what religion is. Do you? I have no doubt that you recognize it when you see it, that you believe you know when you see it. That satisfies one of the three criteria under the Platonic definition. If your belief is true, that satisfies the second. It is the third (justification) that trips you up. Can you clearly and rationally justify to yourself that your belief is true? Can you demonstrate the justification of that to another? Without a clear enough definition of what it is you're attempting to demonstrate, I do not think you can do so.

Here's a simple example:

2 + 3 = 5

That is a true arithmetic equation. Assume you believe it to be true. Can you claim it as personal knowledge if you are unable to quantify the terms 2, 3, and 5?

Kids can't define most words they use. They still know what it means.

[Whateverist]

You claim to have intuitive knowledge, yet without the teachings of others you would be totally ignorant of the concept of a creator. No knowledge can originate within oneself.

True but knowledge of love is in the same boat I suppose. Would anyone really come up with the notion of "being in love" without learning it as religious people learn of God. Having learned it, is it absurd to go on believing in love or "being in love"? Perhaps loving God is no more absurd than being in love with that special someone .. other than the imaginary friend aspect.

[Mystic]

Ok, why should you give in to empathy as opposed to not caring and being selfish?

People are pretty connected to their emotions. Like I said, we can see what happens when empathy isn't developed in sociopaths. Furthermore, in addition to empathy, children have to be taught right from wrong, so empathy is not the whole of morality. It is more like a base block or a foundation to build on.

Ok the way I see it.

God is love. So love is a foundation.
God is beautiful. Being of beautiful character for example, like disputting with good manners, etc, all this is part of morality.
God is just, so justice is a foundation.
At any rate, this seems to give morality it's life force.

Discussing with people, it often comes down to doing what makes us feel better. People often respond to the question of why empathy?

Because it makes me feel good. Why do you feel good and why should you feel good?

There is no should, I just do.

It's empty. It's cold. It's void. It's selfish.

To me morality speaks of an authority to the infinite degree.

We should love others and care about others, and the should in that is ultimate infinite authority.

It's absolute.

We should feel good when we do good to others, and the should in that, is to the infinite degree.

We should feel good because it's good. And really because of God, because God is Ultimate morality.

I feel this is the morality I know and knew.

This empty ethics of this century people are purposing is just too dry.

Goodness however isn't dry. It's higher levels is beautiful and honourable and high.