All This Talk of 'Morals'

[freedomfromforum]

---

"Should" and "ought" according to whom? Because as far as I can tell. I'm the one dictating my 'morals' now, and not god who is a divisive prick.

---

If you decided that killing and eating babies was moral would that then be morality equivalent to the current opinion you now have?

---

You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word. At most it's just a social fashion and a trend and whatever people decide is moral will be moral.

Support for this claim please.

If you want to say it would be evolutionary disadvantageous how about if you stick to eating handicapped children from birth so maintaining the genetic strength within the overall gene pool? From a purely objective evolutionary stance this would be beneficial. However you still know it's wrong.

---

[Brian37]

"Should" and "ought" according to whom? Because as far as I can tell. I'm the one dictating my 'morals' now, and not god who is a divisive prick.

If you decided that killing and eating babies was moral would that then be morality equivalent to the current opinion you now have? You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word. At most it's just a social fashion and a trend and whatever people decide is moral will be moral.

Support for this claim please.

If you want to say it would be evolutionary disadvantageous how about if you stick to eating handicapped children from birth so maintaining the genetic strength within the overall gene pool? From a purely objective evolutionary stance this would be beneficial. However you still know it's wrong.

You know why a Muslim parent, Jewish parent, Hindu parent, Christian parent and atheist parent don't like you fucking with their kids?

For the same reason it would not be wise to disturb the den of a lioness. For the same reason it would not be wise to disturb the nest of an alligator.

Your god claim does not explain shit other than humans like their needlessly self inflicted placebos.

[max-greece]

Unless the story was about how his Christian faith made him a jerk - just maybe - and that now he's given that shit up he's a better person.

I understand that was likely his intent - there's a forum just for this crap, but he chose to put it in the Christianity forum. I'm questioning the logic of that position.

If he's saying that Christianity necessarily turns people into pricks, then he needs to support that. Hence my question, Are you saying that Christians are necessarily pricks like you were?

I think most atheists have known some decent Christian people, though, so I doubt he wants to make that argument. Which means that Christianity doesn't necessarily make people pricks, and he could have been a decent person as a Christian if he had approached it differently.

A more probable conclusion would be:

Some people are not pricks despite being Christian.

"and he could have been a decent person as a Christian if he had approached it differently"

Isn't that for him to say rather than you on his behalf?

[Faith No More]

If you want to say it would be evolutionary disadvantageous how about if you stick to eating handicapped children from birth so maintaining the genetic strength within the overall gene pool? From a purely objective evolutionary stance this would be beneficial. However you still know it's wrong.

Do you think that if evolution were responsible for morals, morals would line up with what is good for evolution? Because no one who claims morals are a result of evolution claims that.

[Chas]

I don't think he's saying that at all, John. I think he means:


It's his experience.

That would be the latter of the two.

And you are demonstrating the former.

---

Morality doesn't exist because of evolution, not human morality anyway seeing our behavior isn't geared toward individual genetic survival particularly. It's based more on genuine compassion for others.

The capacity for compassion is an evolved trait.

[Jackalope]

You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word.

And yet, people do make that claim.

Whether you know it or not, you're in the same boat - because you can't demonstrate that your 'moral law giver' exists. All you've got is a collection of dusty old books, with unknown/questionable authorship.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you saying that Christians are necessarily pricks like you were, or just that you weren't successful at Christianity?

I truly believe you can stop being a judgmental prick without having to give up Christianity, if you're sincere and try hard enough.

[Brian37]

You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word.

Funny how humans no matter where they live, protect their young and have roads with traffic patterns. If we had no morals as a species, we would not organize. The fact that we are tribal as a species does not change that at our core we don't do anything differently.

[John V]

A more probable conclusion would be:

Some people are not pricks despite being Christian.

LOL - how did you calculate that probability?

"and he could have been a decent person as a Christian if he had approached it differently"

Isn't that for him to say rather than you on his behalf?

Only if he's claiming to be completely unique. Otherwise, there are likely people similar to him in natural temperament and background who are jerks among both Christians and atheists, and people similar to him in natural temperament and background who are nice among both Christians and atheists. Point being that people can choose whether to be jerks or to be nice either way. Further, as he admits to being on the jerky side for a long time, he's biased to blaming something other than himself for all that wasted time.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

If that what Sword of Christ was saying were true, then the discussion on ethics would be inseparable from religion, but that is not the case. Instead, ethics are frequently discussed in a secular manner, and it is meaningful. Therefore, morality exists without God.