no

9/25/2006 11:30:24 AM

It seems to me that most Christians think morality goes hand in hand with religion simply because they beg the question. They are so often tempted to break the moral ideals of their own religion, but (sometimes) they don't do so purely because of their beliefs. They then think that people who don't follow their beliefs will obviously be immoral, though only by their religion's standards, because they will not try to do what God 'wants' them to do.

9/25/2006 12:07:56 PM

^
Sounds more like projection than begging the question. (If we're talking in terms of psych and logical fallacies, anyway.)

9/25/2006 12:10:48 PM

^ Yeah, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

9/25/2006 12:13:34 PM

Quote :

"nothing requires god"

god requires all

9/25/2006 12:38:29 PM

In order for there to be morality, you must accept some type of absolute truth. That there is something outside of personal preference that determines what is "right" and what is "wrong", otherwise, anyone can argue that their position is "right" based solely on the fact that they believe it to be.

I can't say, having never been an atheist, but maybe at some basic level, they don't do things that most religious deem "evil" (killing, stealing, etc.) simply because they would feel guilty about it. But then I guess you have to wonder why you would have guilt? I can't think how we would evolve a conscience, doesn't really seem to help in a survival of the fittest type way.

9/25/2006 6:05:37 PM

^
By that argument, no animal would ever live cooperatively.

Living within a community tends to increase survival chances of every individual within said community.

9/25/2006 6:16:51 PM

Quote :

"In order for there to be morality, you must accept some type of absolute truth."

Wrong -- what you've described is moral objectivism. There are two other camps -- moral subjectivism, and moral relativism. Your definition of morality has conveniently left them out.

Quote :

"That there is something outside of personal preference that determines what is "right" and what is "wrong", otherwise, anyone can argue that their position is "right" based solely on the fact that they believe it to be."

You're right -- anyone can argue that their position is "right" based solely on the fact that they believe it to be -- this is moral subjectivism, the idea that we must construct our own values. Again, you confuse "objective morality" with "morality", and think it only comes in one brand. This is patently false. The consequence of people having to construct their own morals does not justify moral objectivism as the only stance.

Quote :

"I can't say, having never been an atheist, but maybe at some basic level, they don't do things that most religious deem "evil" (killing, stealing, etc.) simply because they would feel guilty about it. But then I guess you have to wonder why you would have guilt?"

There are many reasons people might have guilt -- maybe human beings can attach values to things without threat of being thrown into an eternal oven? Maybe they can determine for themselves what they value as good and bad, without an authority to figure it out for them?

Look at it from the flip side here, from the side of those of us who work hard to develop our own personal moral codes. To us, religious morality looks like the frozen, pre-packaged form of morality -- ready to cook, for the busy believer on the go!

Another idea: imagine a community of humans who all thought it was okay, even moral to kill each other. What would happen to them? None would survive. This is a great explanation as to why no societies with such morals exist.

Quote :

"I can't think how we would evolve a conscience, doesn't really seem to help in a survival of the fittest type way."

Just because you can't think of how it would happen does not preclude that it might have. I doubt you'd think of how quantum physics would be the case (if it truly is). This is a silly way to argue -- you're limiting the world to the constraints of your understanding. Evolving a conscience, on the other hand, is a great thing for a social species. I fail to see what's hard to understand about this.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2006 6:31:04 PM

Eloquent post, terrible username

9/25/2006 6:35:28 PM

Thanks -- yeah, I know it's a shitty username. When I lost my old one, I started a poll to see what TWW wanted to rename me.

"ChknMcFaggot" was the name with the most votes, and I'm a man of my word, so . . .

9/25/2006 6:36:25 PM

I was there for it, I submitted McDaenger

with that cool little glommed together ae thing

9/25/2006 8:06:52 PM

The Forest People of the Congo, for example, believe that the forest IS god. If a thing, say, darkness, exists, it must be good because it is OF the forest.

For many peoples around the world, it would be impossible to define morality, god, or religion. The questions concerning what those things are and what they mean simply would not make any sense to them.

With the abovementioned in mind, I cannot condemn entire populations as "immoral" merely because they cannot offer a definition of given terms that would fit our contextual framework. So, the answer is no; I offer a position that morality does NOT require god. In addition, the system of moral principles known as "ethics" does not apply belief in a god or gods as a requirement for morally sound actions.

9/26/2006 1:28:39 AM

I'm too lazy to read the thread to see if my opinion has been said before.

I don't follow a moral code because I fear divine retribution, I follow morals because I care for myself and my fellow man. Decency doesn't require the threat of punishment.

9/26/2006 1:56:10 AM

I was too lazy to read this thread, but did you guys ever ponder whether or not morality requires a god?

9/26/2006 2:32:50 AM

^^^ And with the entrance of the moral relativist, all bases are now covered in this thread.

^ You are a fucking dope.

9/26/2006 8:26:43 AM

^
I think he was talking about paradigms, not relativism.

9/26/2006 8:41:53 AM

Well I think moral relativism itself deals with that very concept -- that there isn't an external objective truth to morality except what a society creates. I could be wrong though, I'm by no means an expert on meta-ethics.

9/26/2006 1:12:32 PM

I'm just talking about logic.

All this "theoretical morality" leaves me cold and wet.

Killing people* does not contribute to a functional society. So don't do it. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

*: As in murder and general conflict resolution.

9/26/2006 2:14:26 PM

Yes...

9/26/2006 4:12:42 PM

No.

Quote :

"Killing people* does not contribute to a functional society. So don't do it. Doesn't seem that complicated to me. *: As in murder and general conflict resolution."

Sure it can, if you think overpopulation will be the end of us all.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 4:50:02 PM

Quote :

"Killing people* does not contribute to a functional society. So don't do it. Doesn't seem that complicated to me."

That's all fine and well, but you assume something you haven't argued....namely that a functional society is a morally desirable thing.

9/26/2006 5:00:04 PM

Well in all fairness you have to start somewhere, with morality

9/26/2006 5:01:12 PM

becuase the ONLY reason to care about society and other people is ....

9/26/2006 5:01:32 PM

I made no assertion, other than that the argument, as it stands, is invalid.

9/26/2006 5:02:22 PM

Man I just ate a microwaved hot dog on a stale bun and it tasted like complete shit.

9/26/2006 5:05:00 PM

Quote :

"I made no assertion, other than that the argument, as it stands, is invalid."

What basis for morality can have a logically valid argument? I don't really see it.

9/26/2006 5:07:04 PM

if you believe it's impossible to argue validly on morality, why argue at all?

9/26/2006 5:08:08 PM

Because there are many things we cannot make a valid argument for the basis of, including basic knowledge of the external world.

What we do know is that we do have strong intuitive feelings of right and wrong. This doesn't mean there's a universal objective standard for morality, but it does mean that as creatures, we do label things as right and wrong. A study of this is where ethics begins. Once we assume morality of some sort due to our own natural inclination to operate in this way (mostly due to being social creatures in a community), then our reason can grasp the concept enough to make a valid argument develop from that premise.

9/26/2006 5:11:46 PM

I was just kidding about the "Yes" comment by the way.

9/26/2006 5:36:08 PM

i am quite sure that the bible says the bible is right, and the bible says you cant have morality without god. what about this is so complex?

9/26/2006 5:38:42 PM

If it proceeds from an unjustifiable premise, it's still invalid.

You can hand-wave all you like, but you must admit that such argumentation isn't very compelling.

9/26/2006 5:41:37 PM

I don't really think morality needs religion. People can treat eachother like they want to be treated. It doesn't require cosmic reliance on a supreme being. However, religion does need morality, in the sense that the institution of religion needs a set of core values and human goals to uphold, generally speaking.

9/26/2006 5:52:02 PM

what if a want to be treated like shit? then its moral for me to treat you like shit.

9/26/2006 6:07:30 PM

That would be amoral of you.

You are saying, mistreat others like the way you want to be mistreated.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 6:24 PM. Reason : -]

9/26/2006 6:09:35 PM

YOU JUST SAID treat others the way you want to be treated IS MORALITY

9/26/2006 6:10:52 PM

Where did I say that mantra is morality?

9/26/2006 6:20:41 PM

up there

9/26/2006 6:27:49 PM

Reading comprehension, look into it.

Seriously though, a textbook definition of morality will differ from that christain mantra of "treat others the same way you want to be treated." It was merely an example, not a definition of morality, obviously.

9/26/2006 6:31:55 PM

try reading between the lines

9/26/2006 6:35:39 PM

Gary knows

9/26/2006 6:36:36 PM

Quote :

"If it proceeds from an unjustifiable premise, it's still invalid. You can hand-wave all you like, but you must admit that such argumentation isn't very compelling."

There's a difference between being unjustifiable and self-justified. If things that you cannot reason to deductively cannot serve as a basis for valid deduction, then you have no knowledge of the outside world.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 7:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 7:25:46 PM

Omar, can you please move this to Soap Box?

n00bz.

9/26/2006 9:20:25 PM

You're the fucking noob, seeing as how you can't or won't contribute to the thread.

You could have easily not posted in here at all. It's not like this is completely out of bounds for the lounge.

9/26/2006 9:34:30 PM

i was debating whether or not to post this in soap box or lounge... but i wanted more than just extremists' answers... ya dig?

9/26/2006 9:38:55 PM

Just go ask an atheist if it would be wrong for you to kill him/her.

Edit: Other than legally

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2006 9:45:55 PM

There are certain situations in which I could imagine killing a man being a beneficial thing, and I'm sure others can, too.

I'd have a hell of a time actually doing anything of the sort myself, mind you.

9/26/2006 9:48:59 PM

negative.

9/26/2006 10:07:51 PM

Evolution couldn't occur without murder.

When you think about it, we owe our entire existence to murderers.

9/26/2006 10:13:33 PM

^ What the fuck.

9/26/2006 10:37:55 PM

Morality does not require god, it requires a brain, that thinks, and when it thinks it processes an action plan, then this action plan is determined from logical and scientific deduction, then it sends the plan of action to each individual body part, then each part does it's thing...

Wow, if that were true we'd all be screwed

We'd be no different than stray cats and silly chimpanzees with bananas. Luckily, we have ingrained in all our pathetic and puny minds an super human ability called a "conscience" ...

Anyways, back to the topic...

I absolutely agree that morality does not require the knowledge or acceptance of "god". But, humans are more than just mindless acting machines. You CANNOT deny that it still requires the knowledge/understanding of love, hope, faith, dreams, passion, joy, peace, anger, fear, etc. to act morally.

I honestly believe that even if you raised someone to be a mindless killer/rapist/computer gamer, deep down inside they will still experience love, they will still dream, they will still be passionate for something, they will still fear things, they will still desire a form of happiness. They will still have morals, even if their "morals" are different than yours or mines.

My Conclusion:
Morality does not require the knowledge of god... it requires the existence of god OR whatever you believe ingrained us with our "human" qualities of conscience and emotions.

...so the real question is: Why do humans have morals? Is it our natural process of survival of the fittest species? Or is because God created us that way? LoL, into the Soapbox you go!

9/26/2006 10:56:11 PM