Morals

[downbeatplumb]

Adrian, when I said that we make up morals what I really said was very similar to what you said. Thanks guys! He's trying to convert me but honestly I'm not interested in debating philosophy with him, because its not a fair and equal fight (because he knows more, philosophy wise) and I didn't become an atheist for philosophical reasons. If you've ever seen the philosophical reasons for gods existence, youd see what i mean lol. They arent convincing anybody.

Imo the reason i reject most thoroughly arguments based on logic alone is because i feel human logic means fuck all when not supported by a physical source.

Agreed, the ancient greeks used logic to 'prove' all sorts of things that have turned out to be wrong.

I am thinking here of things being made up of the four elements Earth, wind and fire. And for the humurs ot the body.

[ecolox]

However, separate people place value and meaning on each other, creating value and meaning subjectively. Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it isn't value and meaning.

When it is said that life is meaningless without God it means...you can live a giving life but because life is unfair - it won't matter. You won't be treated how you deserve to be treated. Thieves are off living the high life and charitable people are dying from starvation. God gives life meaning by ultimately setting things right. E.g. charitable people who are dying from starvation rely on the notion of God in order to continue being charitable while starving or being treated poorly. Without God in mind, people in the long run tend to focus on making sure they are treated well, whether they deserve it or not. This subjective "substitute" for meaning that Adrian describes isn't really a substitute. It doesn't enable a person to live poorer and more charitably than the people around them. (The substitute is meaningless.)

Also true that if we make up morals, we can justify genocide. The thing is, we don't make up morals at all. Morality as far as we know is a cumulative reasoning exercise that whole societies develop.

Hitler led Germany, what was a civil society, into being a genocide machine in no time. The idea that society is safe, gradually improving, and stable (from genocide, etc) because morals are a "cumulative reasoning exercise" is delusional.

The idea that everyone should be treated equally is becoming the dominating idea, and thus changing the morality slowly but surely.

The 20th century was the bloodiest century ever (from deaths by atrocity per population).

[theVOID]

Ecolox is back

I was just saying yesterday i was hoping you'd turn up

---

Also true that if we make up morals, we can justify genocide. The thing is, we don't make up morals at all. Morality as far as we know is a cumulative reasoning exercise that whole societies develop.

Hitler led Germany, what was a civil society, into being a genocide machine in no time. The idea that society is safe, gradually improving, and stable (from genocide, etc) because morals are a "cumulative reasoning exercise" is delusional.

Yep he did, that's what happens when you live in a nation with a history of idols, the German sheep couldn't remember a time without a shepherd, from God to Bismark to Kaiser Wilhelm to Hitler, they are culturally a people who loved to be lead, they were soldiers, not thinkers, only following orders, never giving them. That was the problem with early 20th century Germany, between their heavy Roman Catholic faith (over 80% of germans between 1900-1950 were catholics) and their egocentric philosophies all you had to do was tell them they were special, in Gods eyes or the Fuhrers, they would fall for it head first, especially when it was from God and the Fuhrer.

For the record (the historical record as a matter of fact) Hitler was a fairly obedient catholic:

The Nazi Parties "Programme" (Code of ethics)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Adolf Hitler.

The truth of the matter is Hitler saw the Jews as a materialistic, atheist like culture and hated them in part for that aspect.

SS officers has the insignia on their belts "In the spirit of God we stand"

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited".

-Adolf Hitler, 05/22/1922

"The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument".
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 01 Jan. 1939

Now, before any of you Christians respond to this let me be very clear that i do not think Christianity was responsible for Hitlers actions in any way, he was a sick fuck, end of story. Wouldn't have mattered if he had faith or not, a bad egg is a bad egg. Good people will be good regardless of their beliefs as will evil be evil regardless.

[Violet]

Now, before any of you Christians respond to this let me be very clear that i do not think Christianity was responsible for Hitlers actions in any way, he was a sick fuck, end of story. Wouldn't have mattered if he had faith or not, a bad egg is a bad egg. Good people will be good regardless of their beliefs as will evil be evil regardless.

A 'bad?' egg is a 'bad?' egg... but perhaps the egg could have been prevented from becoming 'bad?' had different circumstances been present

[theVOID]

Now, before any of you Christians respond to this let me be very clear that i do not think Christianity was responsible for Hitlers actions in any way, he was a sick fuck, end of story. Wouldn't have mattered if he had faith or not, a bad egg is a bad egg. Good people will be good regardless of their beliefs as will evil be evil regardless.

A 'bad?' egg is a 'bad?' egg... but perhaps the egg could have been prevented from becoming 'bad?' had different circumstances been present

Perhaps in some circumstances but some people are just genuinely sick.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

A 'bad?' egg is a 'bad?' egg... but perhaps the egg could have been prevented from becoming 'bad?' had different circumstances been present

Perhaps,if for example he hadn't had an father who beat him literally unconscious,if his mother had not been smotheringly overprotective ,if WW1 hadn't begun, and had not ended with the stupidly vindictive treaty Of Versailles and crippling war reparations..

OR perhaps without all those things he may just have been a common or garden variety axe murderer. Or a boring, third rate artist. The rest of his gang of opportunists may also have remained nonentities.

My perception is that specific types of leaders are thrown up by circumstances. Such periods are called 'liminal',periods of unrest and change.Leaders which arise are called 'liminal figures",outsiders, such as Hitler at one end of the spectrum and Ghandi at the other.


Liminality is a concept much loved by Sociolgists and Anthropologists*.Even though it's only one view,it has always fascinated me as an analytical perspective.

Liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold"[1]) The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy.[citation needed] One's sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed - a situation which can lead to new perspectives.[citation needed]

People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality

*See "Forrest of Symbols" by Victor Turner.For fun,Marina Warner's book on Joan of Arc is terrific.

[Edwardo Piet]

When it is said that life is meaningless without God it means...you can live a giving life but because life is unfair - it won't matter. You won't be treated how you deserve to be treated.

So are you saying that since life is not fair then, without God, it wouldn't matter to you that you can live a giving life?

Do you only give to get? What about give to give? That seems less moral to me. I think the fact that life is unfair and not everyone will get repayed, and yet some people still go on giving anyway... is a more noble reason to be moral - and in my mind, more moral - than only being moral if life is "fair", and only being moral if you get treated perfectly justly in return.

I think the fact that one can be moral without needing to always be treated perfectly justly in return, just shows how capable of being truly moral one is.

Without God in mind, people in the long run tend to focus on making sure they are treated well, whether they deserve it or not.

Not the decent people. Some people actually care, and some people actually care regardless of if they always get treated perfectly in return, and regardless of if life is "fair"... fair in the "Godly" (almost certainly non-existent) way you expect it to be.

Hitler led Germany, what was a civil society, into being a genocide machine in no time. The idea that society is safe, gradually improving, and stable (from genocide, etc) because morals are a "cumulative reasoning exercise" is delusional.

Just because society can change when a dictator gets enough power, doesn't mean that morals aren't society-based. There are always setbacks, however large.

The 20th century was the bloodiest century ever (from deaths by atrocity per population).

The 20th century also had a lot more dangerous weapons and arms than any previous century. It's a lot easier for Hitler to do what he did with 20th century weapons. Who's to say if Genghis Khan had had such technology he wouldn't have been more or less as bad? He was also one sick bastard like Hitler was, but the technology to do what Hitler did wasn't even possible in his time.

There have been sick bastards all throughout history. But the weapons have certainly been a lot bigger and more dangerous in this last century or so.

EvF

[littlegrimlin1]

Morals do come from the bible, just not only from the bible. They offer their own deluded set, and we have ours today. yay!

[Edwardo Piet]

I wouldn't say any of them come from the bible.....

Not only can a lot of the ( if few) positive ethic principles in there be found elsewhere, and be found in cultures predating the Bible... but also, moral actions themselves, morality in general can be so without any book telling you to be that way.

How is any "morality" in the Bible to actually be performed and judged properly without basics such as empathy which far far predates the Bible, maybe even human culture?

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Rockthatpiano, I think morality evolves in the same way we have. To believe morality comes from god, you must believe in objective morality, as in it does not change and it's always been the same. This is demonstrably not true when you look at history and how slavery was considered moral (And is still considered moral in some parts of our world) as well as stoning women for adultery, etc... The Bible condones many acts we consider immoral because at the time, it was moral. People might try to claim "Well God was addressing people of that time", but why couldn't God tell them then that slavery was wrong instead of telling you how much to pay, how long you can keep a Jewish slave, how to trick him into becoming a slave for life, and how you can beat him and if he dies, it has to be two days after the beating (So he suffers before dying). If God is speaking to these people in relation to their time period, then objective morality does not exist, and who needs God if he can't even direct his own people to a more moral lifestyle faster than normal social & evolutionary processes?

Humans aren't the only ones who display morality, many social animal groups display moral behaviours. Any social animal needs to set up rules within which they survive and don't kill each other if they are going to truly evolve and survive as a social animal. Here's an article I wrote, discussing this very topic: http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-At...ng-of-Life

One question that you might want to ask this person is "If you found out today that God absolutely did not exist, would you go around raping or murdering". Don't let him dodge the question. He has to either admit that without God he's immoral, which means you, as a moral atheist are more moral than him since you DO NOT go around murdering and raping. Or he must admit that he can be moral without God and that's damaging for him too.

Also, the whole notion of being moral because "Gold told me so" or "I don't want to go to hell" is a childish form of morality. More mature morality comes from the understanding that you don't want to come to harm and don't want others to come to harm too. You don't need God for that

---

When it is said that life is meaningless without God it means...you can live a giving life but because life is unfair - it won't matter. You won't be treated how you deserve to be treated. Thieves are off living the high life and charitable people are dying from starvation. God gives life meaning by ultimately setting things right. E.g. charitable people who are dying from starvation rely on the notion of God in order to continue being charitable while starving or being treated poorly. Without God in mind, people in the long run tend to focus on making sure they are treated well, whether they deserve it or not. This subjective "substitute" for meaning that Adrian describes isn't really a substitute. It doesn't enable a person to live poorer and more charitably than the people around them. (The substitute is meaningless.)

What? You are essentially saying that charitable acts are better when you believe in God because God is on your mind? That is absurd. In fact, this kind of thinking is MORE damaging. If you're willing to suffer because that makes you "holy" and you will go to heaven, then you won't try to improve. Mother Theresa was an abominable woman who would rather watch people suffer and die in the name of God rather than actually try to give them medical attention with the MILLIONS of dollars she received in charity.