Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Haydn2]

I agree , that is the most simplist and fairest approach . But i don't even think that is necessary - i don't believe we conciously set the rules for our own morality , its just there.

Yes we do set our own codes. Remember when you (as a very young toddler) wanted to do something and your parents stopped you?? How did they do this? By causing a small amount of pain, that is how you are taught when you are not able to reason. We forget this and pride ourselves on our understanding and support for illusion and give away our own integrity to institutions that only want to enslave us.

So ... Do as you would be done by.

Yes we are taught by our parents when we our younger , but by wider society also as we get older. It's a bit like i said earlier about a pack Wolves punishing misdermeanors with a snarl , or a bite. They teach eachother by enforcing the code like we do , but do they teach eachother to bring a sick or injured pack member a lump of meat? And for that matter , can we actually learn to selflessly do good for a fellow human being , with no perceivable benefit other then the expected gratitude ?
I think mainly not , but i can see a Dawinian advantage to it.

[Cinjin]

God is the giver of life, whether anyone likes it or not, since life belongs to the one who created it only the creator has a right to take it. Much like an artist is the only one who has the right to destroy his works.

Ok a couple of really ridiculous, clearly concocted-in-the-moment, notions here:

life belongs to the one who created it only the creator has a right to take it.

Totally untrue. My mother and father created a life. Me. They do not have the right to take it from me. Furthermore, any number of things can take my life: I could drown in a swimming pool or trip and impale myself on a wrought-iron fence ... my parents would have had nothing to do with that.

Much like an artist is the only one who has the right to destroy his works.

Totally ridiculous. An artist creates a piece of art to sell so that he can buy clothes and sustenance. The new owner can destroy that art at any time without permission from the artist who created it.

Once again you amaze me in how small your understanding of morality is. Secular morality can be what ever any one person determines at any given time, as long as they have the control to enforce it.

jesus tapdancing christ ... I need change only one word in that last sentence and it fits your religion to a T! Secular to Objective

Thank "god" we have your awesome religion to show us all the "objective" morality of the atrocities done to the human race by your angry cocksucker of a god. Once again you amaze me ... that you're not walking around with a helmet and mouth guard on at all times.

[elunico13]

You can't violate without having a freedom to choose.

Good thing we do have that freedom.

Baking soda doesn't choose to react with vinegar.

Good thing we are neither.

That's called chemistry, which is what you believe you are.

No we don't. Don't try to tell us what we believe.

The will of another is unimportant in an evolution worldview.

No, it's not.

No one is under your arbitrary "social contract" and obligated to obey whatever you say.

If they are a part of society, then yes, they are.

No pain no gain, right?

Wrong.

Why would you love random mutations from pond scum?

No one here loves you.

Any other society can arbitrarily assert the opposite.

Which is why we don't let fundies have that kind of power.

There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?

---

Yes we are taught by our parents when we our younger , but by wider society also as we get older. It's a bit like i said earlier about a pack Wolves punishing misdermeanors with a snarl , or a bite. They teach eachother by enforcing the code like we do , but do they teach eachother to bring a sick or injured pack member a lump of meat? And for that matter , can we actually learn to selflessly do good for a fellow human being , with no perceivable benefit other then the expected gratitude ?
I think mainly not , but i can see a Dawinian advantage to it.

So our parents and then society determine what is moral? Did I understand you correctly?

[genkaus]

There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?

You didn't say anything rational to object to. All you have presented are a bunch of lies and misrepresentations. The only rational response to that is pointing out that you are totally and completely wrong. And that's not an objection - it's a correction.

[Brunitski]

There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?

Arbitrary?
And what do you call this statement? "That's called chemistry, which is what you believe you are."
Pots and kettles.

---

Yes we are taught by our parents when we our younger , but by wider society also as we get older. It's a bit like i said earlier about a pack Wolves punishing misdermeanors with a snarl , or a bite. They teach eachother by enforcing the code like we do , but do they teach eachother to bring a sick or injured pack member a lump of meat? And for that matter , can we actually learn to selflessly do good for a fellow human being , with no perceivable benefit other then the expected gratitude ?
I think mainly not , but i can see a Dawinian advantage to it.

So our parents and then society determine what is moral? Did I understand you correctly?

Our "morals", necessarily complex because of our extraordinarily complicated social interactions, are derived from evolutionary traits selecting for altruism and empathy; which incidentally we share with many other species. There are no absolute "morals". The concept of morals is a construct with its origins in the 14thC - it's original usage pertaining to "correct behaviour in society", or more aligned with customs, social mores and norms or ethics. Your obsession with the providence of "Morals" is entirely subjective.

[Godscreated]

God is the giver of life, whether anyone likes it or not, since life belongs to the one who created it only the creator has a right to take it. Much like an artist is the only one who has the right to destroy his works.

Wrong on both counts. An artist doesn't have the right to destroy his work once someone else owns it and god wouldn't have any rights over the life once he has given it away.

---

Once again you amaze me in how small your understanding of morality is. Secular morality can be what ever any one person determines at any given time, as long as they have the control to enforce it.

No, it can't. Secular morality has to be rationally justifiable to be enforced - otherwise its not secular.

You are absolutely wrong on both accounts, first of all you added to my statement about the artist so you fail to prove any point. I never said the artist sold his works and second God does not give away life He created it and it is His for eternity, He is the One who payed for it on the cross. He makes it clear, what was done on the cross applies to the past, present and future. Go study scriptures then come back and try and make a reasonable argument.

Secular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be, why don't you go argue your point with the Chinese or Russians, tell them they have to apply morality as you see it. First you should become a citizen of those countries and then tell them.

[Tempus]

Secular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be, why don't you go argue your point with the Chinese or Russians, tell them they have to apply morality as you see it. First you should become a citizen of those countries and then tell them.

A vacuous point that applies equally to you anyway. Why don't you argue your point with the Chinese or Russians and tell them they have to apply morality as Christianity sees it? You should become a citizen of one of those countries and then tell them. And? All it demonstrates in either formulation is the unwillingness of China or Russia to adopt people's pet morality.

Also, "the ones in power" write laws in every country, by extension determining morality (at least to some degree; i.e., killing is wrong, etc.). However, this ignores the fact that in secular first world countries the ones in power are elected representatives. The US, UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, to name a few (I know not all of them are technically secular), are not dictatorships (which I acknowledge you haven't said) and elect people to represent the population. Despite their problems they're very good places to live. You make it sound (perhaps unintentionally or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you) as if secularity leads to oppressive regimes, or that the ones in power don't determine law in non-secular countries, neither of which is true. The ones in power determine morality to some degree in every country. The difference is in how far they go and how heavy handed they are in enforcing it.

[genkaus]

You are absolutely wrong on both accounts, first of all you added to my statement about the artist so you fail to prove any point. I never said the artist sold his works and second God does not give away life He created it and it is His for eternity, He is the One who payed for it on the cross. He makes it clear, what was done on the cross applies to the past, present and future. Go study scriptures then come back and try and make a reasonable argument.

It doesn't matter what bullshit rationalizations your scriptures spout - if a person doesn't have life, then he is not alive. If he has life, then its his own life that he has and therefore, it cannot be god's. Further, if he is trying to pay for it on the cross, then it stands to reason that its not his, otherwise he wouldn't have tries to bargain for it. And a bargain cannot take place unless both parties are open to negotiation and we sir, are not.

Secular morality is what the ones in power determine it to be, why don't you go argue your point with the Chinese or Russians, tell them they have to apply morality as you see it. First you should become a citizen of those countries and then tell them.

Why would I tell them anything when its not secular morality they practice? Morality dictated by those in power is called authoritarian morality. Secular morality, by definition, needs to be logical and rational. Go look at a Wikipedia before posting.

[Haydn2]

So our parents and then society determine what is moral? Did I understand you correctly?

Brunitski put this better then i could . But no they don't determine what is moral , the point i was trying to make is that i think it (what ever 'it' is) is evolutionaliry instilled in us .

[Ryantology]

So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.

What keeps the next person from asserting the exact opposite is that most people also possess empathy. Sociopathy is not the basic state of the developed human mind. It's what keeps you from killing, too. You just make the mistake of attributing it to the fictional character you worship.

What makes me laugh is that you cite morality as being the exclusive domain of a god who says "thou shalt not kill", but allows for so many horrifying and arbitrary exceptions which so many of his slaves have gleefully exploited for millennia. The morality of Yahweh, if it can be said to be moral at all, is demonstrably inferior to my own for that reason alone.