[_ Old Earth _] absolute morality

[Asimov]

asimov,

flawed...and makes false assumptions.

blah, blah, blah. are you sure you're not talking about yourself in this last statement, and if not...
prove it, you might win a nobel prize! :-D

the rest of everything you've said, and i'm sure anything you will say in the future is not even worth responding to :

I told you to start a thread if you wanted me to address those. I'm not going cloud this thread with irrelevant points that really have nothing to do with morality, which has already been done.

Like I said, I'd be happy to address your references, just start a thread.

 

[Blazin Bones]

It takes all a mans faith to believe he or nature is above God. I do not argue from any perspective without my faith. I said that before. I play in the skeptics realm because I hope to show that the World's logic is flawed. I am not two men, as much as I am one man in the world made complete by Christ and his salvation.

I don't even know how to answer this without saying something rude, so I'll just leave it at that. Your entire paragraph is pretty insulting, I think.

Why are you offended Asimov? You were the one who suggested I had a split personality. I explained what you attacked.

There must be absolute morality if what I said in explaination can be taken offensive. One of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. If not, why get upset, it doesn't matter because their is no real moral standard.

The fact of the matter is this. There is a Moral absolute. The words you read were in no way rude, but the God's truth being revealed in them convicted you of where you are wrong. Keep denying God's truth and you will only find yourself more hurt by such words as mine.

 

[Asimov]

Why are you offended Asimov? You were the one who suggested I had a split personality. I explained what you attacked.

It's an offensive statement, because you completely ignore everything any atheist has ever said to you by making statements like these.

There must be absolute morality if what I said in explaination can be taken offensive. One of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. If not, why get upset, it doesn't matter because their is no real moral standard.

I didn't say I was upset, I said I found it insulting. That statement has ntohing to do with morals!

There is a Moral absolute. The words you read were in no way rude, but the God's truth being revealed in them convicted you of where you are wrong. Keep denying God's truth and you will only find yourself more hurt by such words as mine.

Hahaha, oh wow, brutus, you read way too much into things. You make a strawman statement about atheism, then make an insubstantiated statement about morality, and then you come to a false conclusion. Too many errors to count.

 

[Asimov]

Dragon, I'm still waiting for you to start a new thread on your supposed references.

You challenged me to comment on them, they would be off topic, so start the challenge and put your money where your mouth is. You accused me of avoiding them, so don't back off now.

 

[bibleberean]

What is this topic about? Hard to follow with all the sarcasm and character attacks.

Keep on point or this thread will be closed. I'm not kidding.

bibleberean

 

[Asimov]

What is this topic about? Hard to follow with all the sarcasm and character attacks.

Keep on point or this thread will be closed. I'm not kidding.

bibleberean

It should be about morality, but it detracted to evolution for some reason...

 

[Veritas]

Hi Asimov, I think my reply to you was lost in the others. I'll post it again because I wouldn't mind continuing...

I wrote:

I don't believe the morals changed, but our willingness to realize and accept them did.

You wrote:

I agree with everything except this. I think morals do change, as we change.

And I replied...

I see. You must believe the morals are changing for the better right?

 

[Asimov]

I see. You must believe the morals are changing for the better right?

I did miss that.

I don't know about for the better...I assume so, because if they changed for the worse then we wouldn't be here for very long. I think that as society evolves into the global community it is becoming, that our morals are evolving as well, to adapt to the change. Before, it was mainly different tribes, operating with different cultures/beliefs, and leaders. Now we are becoming more interdependent, our morals have to change to fit the culture's meshing, the beliefs colliding, and the leaders converging.

 

[Veritas]

Asimov wrote:

I don't know about for the better...I assume so, because if they changed for the worse then we wouldn't be here for very long. I think that as society evolves into the global community it is becoming, that our morals are evolving as well, to adapt to the change. Before, it was mainly different tribes, operating with different cultures/beliefs, and leaders. Now we are becoming more interdependent, our morals have to change to fit the culture's meshing, the beliefs colliding, and the leaders converging.

So is the ability of morals to change a good thing or a bad thing? Is it good or bad based on the survival and progression of our species?

I know these are alot of questions but I'm really getting at something else. I was just wondering what standard you were using to measure morals by and what makes some morals better than others, and if you think those standards you are using to judge the morals by can change. ....or are they absolute?

 

[Asimov]

So is the ability of morals to change a good thing or a bad thing? Is it good or bad based on the survival and progression of our species?

The ability of morals to evolve to adapt to society is a good thing. As we become smarter and our society become larger and more global, we realise that certain things we've believed to be true in the past are not anymore.

I was just wondering what standard you were using to measure morals by and what makes some morals better than others, and if you think those standards you are using to judge the morals by can change. ....or are they absolute?

Morals aren't absolute, that would mean they aren't subject to change. I would say that they are objective and reflect all of humanity. Some morals never change, because they are the foundation of how a societal structure works. That would be "killing and stealing", if you think more should be involved in foundational morals, then please add them and why you think this should be so.

 

[Veritas]

The ability of morals to evolve to adapt to society is a good thing.

Again, I don't believe merely the ability of "morals" to evolve and adapt is a good or bad thing. "Morals" as you speak of them, can evolve badly as well. Germany, Russia, and Cambodia, for example, have all suffered at one time from morals evolving into an unfortunate state.

As we become smarter and our society become larger and more global, we realise that certain things we've believed to be true in the past are not anymore.

Both good morals and bad morals are based on that which is true. I'm not so sure "smartness" has much to do with distinguishing good morals. It seems if you are smart enough, you can prove any moral you wish to follow is correct.

Morals aren't absolute, that would mean they aren't subject to change.

Are you sure you said the above correctly? I don't understand what you mean.

I would say that they are objective and reflect all of humanity. Some morals never change, because they are the foundation of how a societal structure works.

And which societal structure has everyone agreed to?

That would be "killing and stealing", if you think more should be involved in foundational morals, then please add them and why you think this should be so.

Being a Christian, I would agree with you. I don't believe killing and stealing are ever good. However, others have different views even to those foundational morals; especially when you begin to encounter what many consider to be exceptions to the rule. Killing in self defense, killing as a means of appropriate justice, and killing some people for the greater good of humanity are all exceptions commonly held. Many of those exceptions can be reasonably outworked into some fairly horrific ideas and actions.

And because I am a Christian, of course I would say the "morals" presented by Jesus Christ should be foundational as well. I'm not saying everyone accepts them, but I believe they work the best. One in particular, I feel, should be added to the list. Grace. Grace is important because it allows a way to stop the cycle of violence, killing, etc. that has already been started regardless of what may be seen as self defense, justice, good of all, etc. Grace relieves the burden of vendeta that the victim holds and forgives the perpetrator of the action.

If, however, you believe there are no exceptions to that which you presented as bad, I think thats fine. However, I do hope you see the value of grace.

 

[Asimov]

Again, I don't believe merely the ability of "morals" to evolve and adapt is a good or bad thing. "Morals" as you speak of them, can evolve badly as well. Germany, Russia, and Cambodia, for example, have all suffered at one time from morals evolving into an unfortunate state.

I think your argument in this regard is in reference to people in power having bad morals. I think we as a global community need to stop pointing fingers at countries and start realising that we all need to have a global morality. The US was founded on blood and iron, just like Germany.

I think that morality as a whole evolves for the better. If it didn't, and hasn't been, then we wouldn't really be here.

Both good morals and bad morals are based on that which is true. I'm not so sure "smartness" has much to do with distinguishing good morals. It seems if you are smart enough, you can prove any moral you wish to follow is correct.

No, not without looking like a heartless person.

Are you sure you said the above correctly? I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, I said it correctly. If morality was absolute, then it wouldn't be subject to change. So if we started off with a certain kind of morality (that which is set down in the bible, for instance), then it wouldn't be able to evolve.

And which societal structure has everyone agreed to?

I didn't say that we have agreed to anything. There is an underlying foundation of morality, which includes the two below as the most common.

Being a Christian, I would agree with you. I don't believe killing and stealing are ever good. However, others have different views even to those foundational morals; especially when you begin to encounter what many consider to be exceptions to the rule. Killing in self defense, killing as a means of appropriate justice, and killing some people for the greater good of humanity are all exceptions commonly held. Many of those exceptions can be reasonably outworked into some fairly horrific ideas and actions.

I never think that killing as a means of appropriate justice is moral, or effective.

Morality essentially is mans attempt at minimizing the amount of harm we do to other individual humans. Barring losing our own lives or being hurt ourselves, we should do our best to minimize the physical and mental abuse we inflict on others.

And because I am a Christian, of course I would say the "morals" presented by Jesus Christ should be foundational as well. I'm not saying everyone accepts them, but I believe they work the best. One in particular, I feel, should be added to the list. Grace. Grace is important because it allows a way to stop the cycle of violence, killing, etc. that has already been started regardless of what may be seen as self defense, justice, good of all, etc. Grace relieves the burden of vendeta that the victim holds and forgives the perpetrator of the action.
If, however, you believe there are no exceptions to that which you presented as bad, I think thats fine. However, I do hope you see the value of grace.

I don't think that Jesus had very many good things to teach, and what he did teach can be found in the OT. I think that if you wish to live by your own set of ideals that is fine, as long as you don't infringe on the civil rights of another human being.

I don't see the value of grace. I see the value in acceptance and understanding. If everyone accepted each other, and understood each other, there wouldn't be any need for violence.

 

[Veritas]

I think your argument in this regard is in reference to people in power having bad morals. I think we as a global community need to stop pointing fingers at countries and start realising that we all need to have a global morality. The US was founded on blood and iron, just like Germany.

Yes, I was refering to those in power, but with a broad brush, encompassing anyone who has influence in society. But I agree with you, we need to stop pointing fingers, (but that takes grace ;))

I think that morality as a whole evolves for the better. If it didn't, and hasn't been, then we wouldn't really be here.

So, basically morality is better if it encourages our survival? On a whole I presume.

I said:
It seems if you are smart enough, you can prove any moral you wish to follow is correct.

Asimov said:
No, not without looking like a heartless person.

Yes, "heart" is good isn't it.

Morality essentially is mans attempt at minimizing the amount of harm we do to other individual humans. Barring losing our own lives or being hurt ourselves, we should do our best to minimize the physical and mental abuse we inflict on others.

I believe in some cases it may be best to be hurt, and lose our own lives.

I see the value in acceptance and understanding. If everyone accepted each other, and understood each other, there wouldn't be any need for violence.

Well, I know this is a thread on absolute morality, but maybe we should talk about absolute acceptance. I think what you just stated as a value is integral to grace.

 

[Asimov]

Yes, I was refering to those in power, but with a broad brush, encompassing anyone who has influence in society. But I agree with you, we need to stop pointing fingers, (but that takes grace ;))

No, it takes acceptance.

So, basically morality is better if it encourages our survival? On a whole I presume.

Yes.

Yes, "heart" is good isn't it.

I think that emotions can serve a purpose, such as drive to achieve, empathy, compassion, and anger....but they must be controlled. I also think Logic can go very far, but without a little emotion, you can't achieve much.

I believe in some cases it may be best to be hurt, and lose our own lives.

Possibly, that's only for you to decide for yourself though. Nobody should be faulted for wanting to survive.

Well, I know this is a thread on absolute morality, but maybe we should talk about absolute acceptance. I think what you just stated as a value is integral to grace.

I don't think acceptance should be absolute. I think within the confines of morality, acceptance should be a big part of our lives. I don't agree with grace, because it smacks too much of divinity and religion, just like I don't agree with the idea of good and evil, for the same reason.

It's just semantics, though.

 

[Veritas]

Thanks for the discussion Asimov. Let me know if you would like to talk about anything more. I look forward to talking with you in the future.

 

[Asimov]

Thanks for the discussion Asimov. Let me know if you would like to talk about anything more. I look forward to talking with you in the future.

ditto, and I like your name.

 

[dragon]

asimov,

took a long vacation! it was awesome!

Dragon, I'm still waiting for you to start a new thread on your supposed references.

You challenged me to comment on them, they would be off topic, so start the challenge and put your money where your mouth is. You accused me of avoiding them, so don't back off now.

: your hilarious, man! do you realize how much so?

first of all, i wasn't the one who brought up evolution, it was you:

I say that evolution as a mechanism is a fact.

secondly, my references were in no way "supposed"...they were real. and it is because you have such a hard time distinguishing reality from falsehood that i posted them in the first place. but,...i see you missed that.
:o :

thirdly, i never accused you of avoiding anything, it's you who is accusing me. if you see a challenge in anything i've said thusfar, you are either very deluded or extremely narcissistic. :-?

very sad, man.

i will continue to pray for your enlightenment. for real, i think alot about you...even when i'm not laughing!

 

[Asimov]

dude...what are you talking about?

 

[Chupacabra]

dude...what are you talking about?

Emoticons are my favorite way to avoid arguments, too.

 

[Asimov]

you're lying! :D :D :-D 8-) : :wink: :roll: :evil: : ;-) :angel: :bday: : : :o