My faith is on hold.

[Mystic]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

[Joods]

We are all unique and different. I don't think that any god has anything to do with it. Atheists develop senses of right or wrong - all without the help of a god.

In areas of this world have never been exposed to any sort of god and therefore don't believe in one and they do just fine.

Just some food for thought, MK.

[Brian37]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

SO CLOSE!

IT IS individual choosing. FOR EVERY RELIGION!

Do you think every Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Jew agree always 100% all the time? 

Could it be that there is no God/god/gods/deity of any kind? Could it be that humans fight over the mere projections of their own desires, even under the sub sects of the same umbrella label? 

I am sure you have no problem rightfully rejecting the conflicts and claims of Protestants and Baptists and Catholics, all Christians. But, when it comes to Sunnis and Shiites somehow it is the same God but the wrong interpretation. 

YES it is individual interpretation. And that is what makes EVERY religion in the world a horrible way to conduct political diplomacy. It isn't that you can force any religion out of existence, you cant. To do so would make any label a monster.

My point is that if there was a "one size fits all" and it was universal, it would seem to me no argument would occur among humans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheists develop senses of right or wrong - all without the help of a god.

So do theists.  Garnish for the thought food. 

[Whateverist]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

We are all unique and different. I don't think that any god has anything to do with it. Atheists develop senses of right or wrong - all without the help of a god.

In areas of this world have never been exposed to any sort of god and therefore don't believe in one and they do just fine.

Just some food for thought, MK.

Me, I'm a snow flake .. both unique and special.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

According to the religious fairy tales you don't need a holy book for morality.  When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil humans became as smart and as knowledgeable about that issue as Yahweh/Allah.  If you want to be moral know and follow the law of the land.  It'll keep your ass out of trouble most of the time.  

The only thing a deity can do for you is to give you eternal life if you kiss his butt.  So if you want eternal life then follow all of the rules in your holy book.  It'll be a good hobby but a complete waste of time because once you're dead you won't be coming back from the grave in any form.

[ignoramus]

I doubt your faith is on hold! Don't keep your God waiting! He can get real nasty real quick!

[AFTT47]

My point is that if there was a "one size fits all" and it was universal, it would seem to me no argument would occur among humans.

Yes! Listen to this, MK!

If we recognized a "one size fits all" morality and recognized that it was from GOD, how could we differ? There wouldn't be any room for disagreement. If there really is a universally objective morality dictated by an all-knowing deity, that's it! There would be no room for pondering or philosophizing or intellectualizing. If an all-wise deity hands down morality to us than that is that! We couldn't do any better ourselves; we could only follow God's moral code and be righteous or not follow his code and be um-righteous.

But religious leaders (even within the same sect of the same religion) cannot agree on what is really God's law. That is because if God chose to download his universal moral code, he chose a network with a seriously bad error rate. No matter what holy book you choose, there is no clear morality. It's all self-contradictory. That is exactly what one would expect if these so-called "holy books" were written by imperfect, mortal men.

If God wrote a universal moral code, it would be unambiguous and instantly recognizable by mortal men because it is the work of God. How could it be otherwise?

But instead, we are left with contradictory works, each claiming to be the true word of God. And we kill each other this disagreement.

MK, I will not make the claim that there is no objective morality. I will, however make the claim that if there is an objective morality, we don't know what it is!

Right now, we are killing each other over the argument of who has the most undistorted hotline to God. In reality, none of us have that.

Secular morality is superior because we can base it on principals we ALL agree on. Men shouldn't rape 5-year-old girls, right? We ALL agree on this so we adopt that and move forward. What else do we universally agree on? We figure that out and move forward. That's how we arrive at a generally agreed upon universal moral code. It may be imperfect (as all the works of mortal men are) but it sure beats the hell out of me and you beating each other over the head with a stick because the stories our parents told us conflict. Using clear-headed reason and logic leads to the right path. We may get it wrong sometime but we'll self-correct. Eventually, we'll get it right.

[pocaracas]

Atheists develop senses of right or wrong - all without the help of a god.

In a believer's mind, atheists do develop those senses with the help of god. They just don't acknowledge the divine guide as their origin.

The philosophers of old (think Aquinas) would say that good is that which aligns with "natural law", where this "natural law" represents the actual purpose for which each being or structure is intended. A good example they like to trot out, nowadays, is sex - sex has the purpose of procreation; using it for anything else is bad or wrong. The pleasure that one feels from sex is just an evolved construct to impel individuals to actually have sex and, thus, procreate. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
God, as the originator of this natural law, defines what is good. If you, the atheist, follow natural law, regardless of how you came to such a following, you are doing good.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

So, you're writing about things to which you haven't given much thought?  I find myself less than shocked. 

Boru