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

[Annik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27...evelopment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget...f_morality

Here is some insight into moral development. Cultures decide morals more than society on the whole. The morals in the US are different from the morals in the UK, just as the morals in the UK are different from morals in Japan.

So which one of the two is it?

Societies decides morals because they are morals or are they morals because society decided them to be morals?

I think it's neither. I think some of societies decisions reflect morals as they ought to be, and some don't. But this only possible with the view that morals are not just social cues.

If you are referring to the links, both are schools of thought.

If you are referring to the two "choices" you posed to me, cultures decide moral values. Keep in mind, morals are not ethics. Also something to ponder: You only see their morality as wrong because it contradicts yours, as is set up by the social cues of your culture.

[Panglossian]

Logic is basically reasoning via the evaluation of certain facts to reach a decisive conclusion. It is not knowledge itself, but rather a tool for aquiring it.
The concept was established by Aristotle; logic was invented by humans. Therefore, logically (see what I did there? ), we can deduce it to be impossible for us to be born with the ability to form analytical expositions.
Hope this answers your question

I disagree with your analysis. Logic is both knowledge and a tool and we have it built in us. We just learn to process it and apply it later.

Also, it's all intuitive and properly basic. Yet we know for certainty it is correct.

Whether it was acquired or not, it's intuitive knowledge.

It isn't strictly my analysis. I pretty much gave you the definition. It's a different mindset designed to overcome certain obstacles i.e. problem solving.
I agree with you that we all have the capacity to achieve logical thought, and we are taught to utilise said capacity as we get older, but I simply do not see how the knowledge of how analytical thought works is instilled in our brains from birth.
Even if logic was an inherent birthright of all humans, it still isn't an argument for the existence of a divine creator.
I have no problem accepting your beliefs, infact I find Deism rather refreshing, however I do think that this kind of shallow reasoning is flawed...

[Mystic]

So which one of the two is it?

Societies decides morals because they are morals or are they morals because society decided them to be morals?

I think it's neither. I think some of societies decisions reflect morals as they ought to be, and some don't. But this only possible with the view that morals are not just social cues.

If you are referring to the links, both are schools of thought.

If you are referring to the two "choices" you posed to me, cultures decide moral values. Keep in mind, morals are not ethics. Also something to ponder: You only see their morality as wrong because it contradicts yours, as is set up by the social cues of your culture.

Morality tells you how ought to act though. So if two different societies are telling you two different morals, what morals should you follow and why?

(This is a good conversation, be patient)

[Jackalope]

Yes some intuitions can be wrong, but it doesn't mean we cannot know anything intuitively.

You're going to have to pin down what you mean by "intuition" and "know(ledge)" first.

In epistemology, the Platonic view is that knowledge is justified, true belief. However, there is much disagreement as to what knowledge actually is.

Intuition can be viewed as the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason, or as a priori knowledge/belief - and the definition is far from settled.

I'm not convinced that intuitive knowledge meets the Platonic criteria demanded of knowledge by epistemology, at least not universally. Without an agreement to what those two terms mean, any kind of statement regarding the possibility of intuitive knowledge is necessarily vague.

[Mystic]

Yes some intuitions can be wrong, but it doesn't mean we cannot know anything intuitively.

You're going to have to pin down what you mean by "intuition" and "know(ledge)" first.

In epistemology, the Platonic view is that knowledge is justified, true belief. However, there is much disagreement as to what knowledge actually is.

Intuition can be viewed as the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason, or as a priori knowledge/belief - and the definition is far from settled.

I'm not convinced that intuitive knowledge meets the Platonic criteria demanded of knowledge by epistemology, at least not universally. Without an agreement to what those two terms mean, any kind of statement regarding the possibility of intuitive knowledge is necessarily vague.

haha, this is would go way off topic though don't you think? I don't know how to define knowledge...maybe it's like religion, can't be defined but we all know what it means?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In different threads, I'm always asked, to why I believe what I believe

Not by me,I don't care about your personal superstitions*. I may comment on content.

EG Intuitive knowledge is fine, ,if and only if supported by credible evidence. I do not accept the notion that god can be reasoned into or out of existence.


* a more accurate term for 'belief without credible evidence', than 'faith'

[Mystic]

In different threads, I'm always asked, to why I believe what I believe

Not by me,I don't care about your personal superstitions*. I may comment on content.

EG Intuitive knowledge is fine, ,if and only if supported by credible evidence. I do not accept the notion that god can be reasoned into or out of existence.


* a more accurate term for 'belief without credible evidence', than 'faith'

Why is intuitive knowledge only fine if supported by credible evidence?

[Annik]

If you are referring to the links, both are schools of thought.

If you are referring to the two "choices" you posed to me, cultures decide moral values. Keep in mind, morals are not ethics. Also something to ponder: You only see their morality as wrong because it contradicts yours, as is set up by the social cues of your culture.

Morality tells you how ought to act though. So if two different societies are telling you two different morals, what morals should you follow and why?

(This is a good conversation, be patient)

I use the term culture, because it is far more accurate to describe the social climate.

Usually, that's decided by the primary caregiver, as our parents (and then our peers) are the ones that directly teach us morals and social behavior. Although, detached from the school of psychology, I believe once we come into abstract thought, those morals should be stacked against ethics to see if they are truly correct.

[Mystic]

Morality tells you how ought to act though. So if two different societies are telling you two different morals, what morals should you follow and why?

(This is a good conversation, be patient)

I use the term culture, because it is far more accurate to describe the social climate.

Usually, that's decided by the primary caregiver, as our parents (and then our peers) are the ones that directly teach us morals and social behavior. Although, detached from the school of psychology, I believe once we come into abstract thought, those morals should be stacked against ethics to see if they are truly correct.

OK, so ethics...where do you decide ethics from? (to me these are synonymous words)

[Annik]

This site would explain better than I could: http://www.endusmilitarism.org/ethicsandmorality.html
There is a section on the differences below the fold.