Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[paulpablo]

Why would a god create humans with an 'innate' morality that contradicts the morality that it wishes us to live by? Seems a bizarre thing to do.

There's actually a comprehensive answer to this question but the backbone is this; God has clarified what He intends, and what He doesn't through the use of revelation. So in the end, we know for a fact what God actually wants.

Now, here's a question; Islamic law only applies to Muslims, God doesn't intend Christians to abstain from alcohol or Atheists to refrain from pork etc. So why would God "reveal" codified laws only to those who believe, what about disbelievers? Here's where the innate morality comes into play. God has essentially allowed all humans to start off with a "level playing field" if you like, which is subconscious morality. As for those who believe in Him, then they have an extra criterion, which is Divine legislation.

It's funny how you know so much about the workings of god, where did you find all this level playing field stuff out? I'm certain you didn't just guess this from your own mind, because you have a high reputation of posting such logical comments on here.
I'm assuming you can prove that everyone is born with morality in equal amounts, and that you can show your working outs and measurements of morality.

[ideologue08]

But do you agree that using logic sometimes leads to actions which the mainstream would regard as "evil" or "immoral"?

I don't agree or disagree with this statement. You'll have to provide an example with sound logic used to apply a principle believed in innately that is then regarded by most of humanity as evil.

There are actually many examples I could give here. 1 example would be, say you are a tribal leader in the lawless jungles of Congo. You have the power to rape women as you see fit, usurp other people's wealth, and generally do as you please because there are no political or legal ramifications. The logical option would be to act exactly in this manner would it not? In fact, rape os statistically proven to be an effective weapon of warfare (which is why the Soviets used it during WW2 and is in widespread use today).

[paulpablo]

MO you said you learned that lying was bad before you learned to do anything, how did you learn this at a time before you learned to talk or learned any language or learned how to walk?
Are you going to answer the question?

[Something completely different]

mo66

Is there nothing you want to reply to my response?

come on! it is 2 am and I want some fun!!!!!

[Mystic]

Why would a god create humans with an 'innate' morality that contradicts the morality that it wishes us to live by? Seems a bizarre thing to do.

There's actually a comprehensive answer to this question but the backbone is this; God has clarified what He intends, and what He doesn't through the use of revelation. So in the end, we know for a fact what God actually wants.

Now, here's a question; Islamic law only applies to Muslims, God doesn't intend Christians to abstain from alcohol or Atheists to refrain from pork etc. So why would God "reveal" codified laws only to those who believe, what about disbelievers? Here's where the innate morality comes into play. God has essentially allowed all humans to start off with a "level playing field" if you like, which is subconscious morality. As for those who believe in Him, then they have an extra criterion, which is Divine legislation.

There is a problem in that every action is judged according it's intention. That is based on perception. But if you follow authority, you can't ever get an exact perception to the action, you rather are doing out of intention of obeying authority, which then levels all actions in a leveled playing field, there is no distinction at all. You don't perceive the praise and the praise then is not the spirit behind the action, because actions are based on perception.

Therefore one action cannot be worth more then another if it's based on the same intention (obedience to authority).

But if you perceive the action and it's worth, then this is different.

Also simply hearing what action is more praiseworthy or not, will not embed the spirit behind the action. It will then simply give a tradesman's intention, wanting to gain more "reward" intention.

---

I don't agree or disagree with this statement. You'll have to provide an example with sound logic used to apply a principle believed in innately that is then regarded by most of humanity as evil.

There are actually many examples I could give here. 1 example would be, say you are a tribal leader in the lawless jungles of Congo. You have the power to rape women as you see fit, usurp other people's wealth, and generally do as you please because there are no political or legal ramifications. The logical option would be to act exactly in this manner would it not? In fact, rape os statistically proven to be an effective weapon of warfare (which is why the Soviets used it during WW2 and is in widespread use today).

No you misunderstood. I never said logic is a basis to any moral action. I am saying it's a factor to some moral actions.

I said three basis to where I get morals from.

Good will (innate). Perception (innate and acquired). And logic (innate, but needs to be applied correctly to situations).

[ideologue08]

There's actually a comprehensive answer to this question but the backbone is this; God has clarified what He intends, and what He doesn't through the use of revelation. So in the end, we know for a fact what God actually wants.

Now, here's a question; Islamic law only applies to Muslims, God doesn't intend Christians to abstain from alcohol or Atheists to refrain from pork etc. So why would God "reveal" codified laws only to those who believe, what about disbelievers? Here's where the innate morality comes into play. God has essentially allowed all humans to start off with a "level playing field" if you like, which is subconscious morality. As for those who believe in Him, then they have an extra criterion, which is Divine legislation.

There is a problem in that every action is judged according it's intention. That is based on perception. But if you follow authority, you can't ever get an exact perception to the action, you rather are doing out of intention of obeying authority, which then levels all actions in a leveled playing field, there is no distinction at all. You don't perceive the praise and the praise then is not the spirit behind the action, because actions are based on perception.

Therefore one action cannot be worth more then another if it's based on the same intention (obedience to authority).

But if you perceive the action and it's worth, then this is different.

Also simply hearing what action is more praiseworthy or not, will not embed the spirit behind the action. It will then simply give a tradesman's intention, wanting to gain more "reward" intention.

---

There are actually many examples I could give here. 1 example would be, say you are a tribal leader in the lawless jungles of Congo. You have the power to rape women as you see fit, usurp other people's wealth, and generally do as you please because there are no political or legal ramifications. The logical option would be to act exactly in this manner would it not? In fact, rape os statistically proven to be an effective weapon of warfare (which is why the Soviets used it during WW2 and is in widespread use today).

No you misunderstood. I never said logic is a basis to any moral action. I am saying it's a factor to some moral actions.

I said three basis to where I get morals from.

Good will (innate). Perception (innate and acquired). And logic (innate, but needs to be applied correctly to situations).

What if 2 people have the exact same intention but has a "better" action? All actions are relative, a poor person that gives 500 pounds in charity is not the same as a rich person that gives 500 pounds.

[Mystic]

What if 2 people have the exact same intention but has a "better" action?

The praise to me belongs to the intention. This is how I perceive morals.

[ideologue08]

What if 2 people have the exact same intention but has a "better" action?

The praise to me belongs to the intention. This is how I perceive morals.

Fair enough.

[catfish]

What if 2 people have the exact same intention but has a "better" action? All actions are relative, a poor person that gives 500 pounds in charity is not the same as a rich person that gives 500 pounds.

What if the poor person only gave the 500 pounds to charity because they wanted to be seen as being a charitable person?
.

[paulpablo]

Mo are you still not going to explain this

( e.g I already figured out lying was wrong as a child before I was taught anything)

Either you were raised by wolves who didn't teach you much before you learned some sort of animalistic morality, or you managed to figure out lying was bad before you learned to walk and talk which is strange because most babies learn how to deceive before they even learn to walk properly for example by crying or tripping over on purpose to get attention and so on.