Theistic and atheistic influences on society

[InfiniteNow]

If morals were naturally occurring, then everyone would have them.

Sure. The fact of the matter though, questor, is that everyond DOES have them, they just don't all align or agree. Just because someone elses morality does not match your own does not imply that they don't have morals. It just means they are different. Your argument fails on so many levels, and your ignorance shines through nearly every post you make.

 

What I find most distressing is the fact that you've been posting on this site for so many years, and you still continue using the same tired and baseless arguments, consistently ignoring the reality around you.

 

I truly pity you, and also anyone who reads your posts thinking they are accurate or correct or helpful in any way.

[modest]

If morals were naturally occurring, then everyone would have them.

I think it's reasonable to assume (By the way, I said this in my last post which you may have missed while skimming over it) that every healthy person has a sense of morality. This, however, is not necessary for my position on this issue to be true.

 

All you have to do is look at the world today and see this is not true.

You either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. I said:

Our ability (and tendency) to see things as right and wrong is fundamental to being human.... The

things

that we believe are right and wrong come from a whole host of factors (of which religion is only one possible factor).

 

In other words, the concept of morality is universal to humanity while individual morals are different from person to person. INow explains this very well in the above post.

 

Religion can "shape" a person's morality. It can tell them "an eye for an eye" or "let he who is without sin throw the first stone". These are individual morals and they are informed by religion and society and other things... as I said before, which you may have missed:

Morality is informed by our society, our upbringing, our wants and desires, our understanding of the world around us, our physiology, our language, our shared history and many other things (including religion) that have shaped us into what we are - both as individuals and as a society.

Your statement above and the idea that it expresses is completely wrong and appears not to the thought through at all. It is true that different groups of people disagree over what is moral and what is not moral. Your assumption that this means some people have no sense of morality at all makes no sense.

 

If cartoons are the genesis of morality, I guess morality did not exist until Walt Disney invented them.

 

If a cartoon or a comic book teaches a child some lesson of morality then the child learns a moral (or a moral lesson) from the comic or cartoon. The child did not inherit the capacity to understand morality from the comic book. So, of course the writer of the comic didn't invent morality. The writer told a moral lesson rather than creating morality - an aspect of humanity.

 

Confusing these two things may be one reason why you have drawn the conclusions you have.

 

Why fight this obvious fact so hard? Most of the positive morality in our society comes from religion.

 

But, in this country it really doesn't. In some countries such as fundamental Islamic republic's you would be correct. But, in our society it is more often social (or secular) morality that affects religious morality. In the new testament of the Christian bible, woman do not have equal rights to men. Yet in our society we believe equal rights is moral. In the new testament of the Christian bible, slavery is moral. Yet, in our society, it is not. There are many other examples like this where religion in our country today teaches the morality that we have learned as a society rather than teaching the morality that the religion was founded on.

 

Your idea that "positive morality" comes from religion appears to be rather uninformed. I doubt much of any of the "positive morals" you believe in are shared in the history of the major American religions or in their writings.

 

It is true that some religions practice human sacrifice, maybe cannibalism, female circumcision or other atrocities, but I'm talking about civilized countries religion.

This shows your true colors clearly. In order to make believe your world view is correct, you easily disregard most of the world's values and morals as uncivilized.

 

This is very much what the Catholic priests did when Columbus and his successors first explored America. They saw quite clearly that the Natives were uncivilized (as you say) and so had no problem killing them and sending them to God. The priests said that was fine... that was the moral thing to do. Kill the savages and take their gold. Clearly: all our morals come from this sort of civilized religion, eh questor? Well - at least the "positive morals" do. The negative morals most likely come from hippies and terrorists :naughty:

 

~modest

[Galapagos]

To play devil's advocate - couldn't that be said of either side?

It can't be said for the Forest Spirits of the Itza people, and it can't be said of the Yahweh of the Abrahamic faiths, because neither of those agents are real.

 

It could be said that the Itza people feel as though they possess an accurate view of the world, but in actuality they do not.

 

Also, I answered the question assuming no one would ask the question "What benefits accrue to believers/non-believers in supernatural agent X" as a means of deciding whether or not to believe in said agent as to reap the accompanying benefits. I do not think I could make myself believe in Shiva tomorrow no matter how hard I tried and no matter what benefits(socially, psychologically, or whatever) may accrue to me upon doing so. We are at the mercy of the evidence :naughty:

 

 

 

I think it's reasonable to assume (By the way, I said this in my last post which you may have missed while skimming over it) that every healthy person has a sense of morality. This, however, is not necessary for my position on this issue to be true.

 

Every human society has moral sentiments, in-group/out-group distinctions for meting out moral concern, and proscription of murder and rape.

 

Human Universals

 

Primatologist Frans de Waal also argues that primates display some of the behavioral capacities built into our moral intuitions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all

[Essay]

Primatologist Frans de Waal also argues that primates display some of the behavioral capacities built into our moral intuitions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all

...with a lame attempt at a joke:

 

The Frans de Waal Force: Force generating our moral intuitions that is built upon the capacity for primate behavioral displays.

 

~ :)

[questor]

If one is to argue about morality, it is important to define it. In reading the posts here, it seems that many think morality is whatever you wish it to be. Does this mean '' if it feels good, do it''? There is obviously no moral code that we can all agree upon. That is why this argument has no purpose. If you want to say everyone has morality, but there are people robbing, killing, cheating and lying, what is the use to argue with that premise? If you think all primitive or uncivilized people have what you accept as morality, what possible argument can one have against that?

If you think your morality came out of thin air with no influence from your parents beliefs or the presence of religion, that shows me a total lack of understanding of data processing.

[Moontanman]

If one is to argue about morality, it is important to define it. In reading the posts here, it seems that many think morality is whatever you wish it to be. Does this mean '' if it feels good, do it''? There is obviously no moral code that we can all agree upon. That is why this argument has no purpose. If you want to say everyone has morality, but there are people robbing, killing, cheating and lying, what is the use to argue with that premise? If you think all primitive or uncivilized people have what you accept as morality, what possible argument can one have against that?

If you think your morality came out of thin air with no influence from your parents beliefs or the presence of religion, that shows me a total lack of understanding of data processing.

 

So Questor, with out religion you would have no problem stealing, beating, murdering, raping, or in anyway breaking the rules we all live by?

[Moontanman]

Modest, I hope this qualifies as a direct answer to this question: YES, it is possible morality came first, but IMO, morality was not codified and written until religion was also present.

I don't think Neanderthal man was reluctant to bash in skulls, and some tribes even now may be cannibalistic. I believe the concept of morality came about with the adoption of religion by certain people. It is certainly obvious that all religions do not have the westerners idea of morality, but one of the basic teachings of most civilized organized religions is moral laws. I don't know where else you think it comes from.

This quote: {quote]People can have empathy and compassion even if they don't fear hell - because empathy and compassion are first and foremost human characteristics. What proof do you have that compassion

and empathy are human characteristics? How do you explain the Nazis, the Jihadists, Stalinists, Ghengis Kahn, the Red Brigade? The billions that have died from conquests?

I did not say this: . I said that morality comes mainly from religious teachings. Do you know what a non-sequitur is? I have no problem answering a clearly written question. Since I seem to be the odd man out here, I get A LOT OF QUESTIONS, many of which are redundant. I wish people could stick with what I say, rather than make up what they think I say.

A few questions for you:

Would you say you were born an atheist, taught to be an atheist, or just became one on your own? Were most of your peers atheists? Were any of your peers at any age religious? Were any of your relatives religious?

 

Questor what the hell do you know about Neanderthals? Why would you say such a completely unverifiable thing? Yes there are people who seem to be with out any morals but it's not because they haven't been taught morals. Morals, even in our society are often what the individual wants them to be. My idea is if it doesn't harm anyone but me then i should be able to do it if I want, that's my moral code, how is that connected to religion?

[REASON]

If one is to argue about morality, it is important to define it. In reading the posts here, it seems that many think morality is whatever you wish it to be. Does this mean '' if it feels good, do it''? There is obviously no moral code that we can all agree upon. That is why this argument has no purpose. If you want to say everyone has morality, but there are people robbing, killing, cheating and lying, what is the use to argue with that premise? If you think all primitive or uncivilized people have what you accept as morality, what possible argument can one have against that?

If you think your morality came out of thin air with no influence from your parents beliefs or the presence of religion, that shows me a total lack of understanding of data processing.

 

This post just represents another example of your inability, or unwillingness, to grasp the concepts being discussed. It appears to be your goal here in virtually every discussion you participate in, to be nothing but a contrarian. It has not appeared to me that you are here to learn or educate - you just seem to like being a thorn in the side.

 

What would it mean for you to find and express agreement with one of the established members here, or express an understanding of their knowledge of a subject? Would it mean that you are siding with the enemy - the liberal science community for which you have learned to dislike and distrust? Do you feel you are waging some sort of war here in defense of your conservative ideals and values?

 

What, exactly, are you trying to achieve here, questor? Do you have enough integrity to express it honestly and publicly? Or is it all we can expect from you to continually present hypocritical, partisan, crass, judgmental, fallatious, strawman arguments? 'Cause you know what?

 

It's getting boring.

 

Can you honestly say that the comments made by modest in his last two posts do not make sense to you? Is his argument for understanding that a sense of morality is inherent to humanity really that difficult to consider? Do you honestly believe that someone who commits an immoral act therefore has no morals at all? Have you ever done anything immoral? Do you deserve to be forgiven for your trespasses? Can you forgive those who trespass against you?

 

C'mon, questor. I'm ready to move past this perpetual childish sparring with you and move to more normalized adult discussion.

 

What say you?

[modest]

If one is to argue about morality, it is important to define it.

The ability to distinguish good and evil or right and wrong, right or good conduct; Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

 

-

source

In reading the posts here, it seems that many think morality is whatever you wish it to be.

That is not my position and I've seen nobody say that.

Does this mean '' if it feels good, do it''?

This appears to have nothing to do with anything.

There is obviously no moral code that we can all agree upon.

This is probably true. I remember Carter saying something like this in recollection of the Israel/Palestine peace talks, but I can't find the quote :hyper:

That is why this argument has no purpose.

You say we all would need to agree on one moral code in order to discuss where morality (in general) comes from. This again shows your inability to distinguish between moral guidelines and human morality in general.

 

Morality is a fundamental human ability or tendency to see information or sort ideas as right/wrong or good/bad. Morals (the kind you think we all need to agree on) are specific statements about which ideas are good and which are bad). I truly believe that you would do much better to understand the difference here.

 

If you want to say everyone has morality, but there are people robbing, killing, cheating and lying, what is the use to argue with that premise?

Even if we ignore that premise and say that American, Judeo-Christian values are the only 'real' morals and only people who follow them perfectly have morality then your argument still falls apart. I've given 2 examples of where this is the case. Equal rights for women and abolition of slavery are NOT Judeo-Christian morals. They appear to be values that came from no religion at all.

 

There are other examples like the 2 I give above. So, your argument is wrong even if you start from the ridiculous premise that the only real morality is your particular American version of it.

 

If you think all primitive or uncivilized people have what you accept as morality, what possible argument can one have against that?

I'm not expecting you to have an argument against that - nor, to have a counter argument for what I'm saying in general. I'm not attempting to debate you. I think you have made some easily-fixable mistakes in developing your idea that religion is the basis for morality. I've tried to show you (as have many in this thread) those mistakes.

 

If you think your morality came out of thin air with no influence from your parents beliefs or the presence of religion...

 

I've now posted this and repeated it twice to correct you:

Morality is informed by our society, our upbringing, our wants and desires, our understanding of the world around us, our physiology, our language, our shared history and many other things (including religion) that have shaped us into what we are - both as individuals and as a society,

You are either not reading my posts, you're not understanding them, or you are purposefully mischaracterizing them. Whichever is the case, it makes this ironic:

that shows me a total lack of understanding of data processing.

~modest

[questor]

Reason, sorry you are bored, but I see no reason to offer views that make no sense to me. Let me bore you further with a few comments:

What would it mean for you to find and express agreement with one of the established members here, or express an understanding of their knowledge of a subject? Would it mean that you are siding with the enemy - the liberal science community for which you have learned to dislike and distrust? Do you feel you are waging some sort of war here in defense of your conservative ideals and values?

I have no problem agreeing with what I consider a true statement. I am a truth seeker. Interesting you should describe those posting here as the ''liberal science community''. You may have read some of my thread on different brain wiring, these discussions are proof of much of my concept. People interpret issues differently. If there was another conservative posting here, he would likely think more like I do than like you. I don't hate , why should I, just because someone is rude and intemperate? That is his problem, not mine, and shows an angry, frustrated individual.

Let me address some other quotes:

What, exactly, are you trying to achieve here, questor? Do you have enough integrity to express it honestly and publicly? Or is it all we can expect from you to continually present hypocritical, partisan, crass, judgmental, fallatious, strawman arguments? 'Cause you know what?

Is this your idea of a temperate individual? What does this type attack generate? You don't have to believe in my ideas, and you don't have to participate in my posts. Have I attacked you personally?

Can you honestly say that the comments made by modest in his last two posts do not make sense to you? Is his argument for understanding that a sense of morality is inherent to humanity really that difficult to consider? Do you honestly believe that someone who commits an immoral act therefore has no morals at all? Have you ever done anything immoral? Do you deserve to be forgiven for your trespasses? Can you forgive those who trespass against you?

I agree with some of Modest's comments, and he doesn't realize in some of them he is proving my point.

I do not believe moralty is inherent in people. Societal mores are learned from having to live with others. The concept of right and wrong is learned, not inherited, otherwise there would not be so much evil in the world. Most of the civilized world adheres to morality expressed through their religions. As far as I know, the current generation of inhabitants of the civilized world had strong religious

influences from churches, families, peers, and society. How could this possibly not have played a pre-eminent part in their developing mind? If you have truth to the contrary, please speak it. I don't know why people should try to deny the influence of religion in their lives as if it was evil and has to be denigrated.

If this bores you, find greener pastures.

[bonsaikc]

If morals were naturally occurring, then everyone would have them. All you have to do is look at the world today and see this is not true. If cartoons are the genesis of morality, I guess morality did not exist until Walt Disney invented them. Why fight this obvious fact so hard? Most of the positive morality in our society comes from religion. It is true that some religions practice human sacrifice, maybe cannibalism, female circumcision or other atrocities, but I'm talking about civilized countries religion.

 

Forgive me if I assume too much, but it seems to me you are using "morals" as a specific set of beliefs, e.g. "The moral code to which I adhere." Mankind is a naturally moral animal. Most humans probably would not accept your moral code any more than you would accept theirs.

 

Some moral codes are anti-life. This makes them illegitimate, or even evil, but they are still moral codes. The suicide bomber is certain he is not only moral, but laying up treasures in heaven. The Catholic church insists that not only is abortion murder, but so are some artificial means of contraception. Baptists belief masturbation is a sin.

 

The only truly life-affirming moral code would be one derived from the necessities of living a human life, and these codes came before religion, which was developed as a way to provide order and answers to questions concerning that which cannot be seen. You think neanderthal man was bashing another's head in? Perhaps he was, but it's more likely that he was negotiating with his neighbors and clan for what he wanted, insofar as the evidence we have shows him quite an artisan of beads (currency?)

 

I would go farther and state that religious moral codes are anti-life. I find religious morality repugnant because it insists that we ignore what our senses and scientific instruments tell us and believe that which can never show evidence. Contrary to the book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict,", any evidence ever offered for faith automatically takes it out of the realm of faith.

 

I believe in fact. My morality is based in fact. Do I feel free to murder my neighbor? No. Initiating violence against another is anti-life. It will not serve to improve my life and may cause me to lose it. Do I feel free to steal? No, and not because of some nebulous vengeance in the afterlife or fear of being caught in this one. I do not steal because I believe in the sanctity of private property, that a man should be able to keep the end result of his productivity. For that reason I will defend my life, family, and property with deadly force, if need be.

 

 

What does religious morality say? If any man strike you, turn to him the other cheek, also. If any man require your cloak, give him your coat also. See, the religious morality requires you to relinquish your hold on anything you have ever accomplished. This is moral? I think not.

 

Why is "Mother Theresa" so revered? Because she gave of herself to the poor? You'd be more accurate to say that she did everything in her power to keep them poor and beholden to the Church. In my morality, the best thing you can do for the poor is teach them how not to be poor. You can't do that by insisting they have dozens of children, forcing women to destroy their health and bodies for the sake of the Church's teaching about contraception.

 

Don't tell me that religion provides morality as a good in the world. It produces a sick, guilt-ridden, anti-life morality that has done far more evil in the world than it ever did good.

[questor]

Bon, it seems that religion ha streated you badly.

Forgive me if I assume too much, but it seems to me you are using "morals" as a specific set of beliefs, e.g. "The moral code to which I adhere." Forgive me if I assume too much, but it seems to me you are using "morals" as a specific set of beliefs, e.g. "The moral code to which I adhere." Mankind is a naturally moral animal. Most humans probably would not accept your moral code any more than you would accept theirs.

 

Mankind is a naturally moral animal.

What is moral about killing fetuses? What is moral about letting vicious killers escape the death penalty? What morality is man naturally born with?

Do you think morality encompasses all of man's endeavors?

 

Don't tell me that religion provides morality as a good in the world. It produces a sick, guilt-ridden, anti-life morality that has done far more evil in the world than it ever did good.

So I guess you were fortunate enough to grow up in an atheistic home that hated religion?

[modest]

I agree with some of Modest's comments, and he doesn't realize in some of them he is proving my point.

I do not believe moralty is inherent in people. Societal mores are learned from having to live with others. The concept of right and wrong is learned, not inherited

Morality is both learned and inherent. It's not an either / or situation.

 

Our ancestors who were unable to work together or distinguish "good" from "bad" were more likely NOT to succeed. We have evolved a sense or capacity to recognize or label good and bad. This is our sense of morality and it is inherent to humanity (and also appears present to a lesser extent in other higher primates).

 

This does not mean that morality isn't learned. Our evolved sense of morality (which we apparently all have) means that we are capable of learning morality and do so by default. The specific morals that we learn come from many sources such as society, friends, parents, religion, TV, life experiences, etc.

 

There is no reason for you to present learned vs. inherent as mutually exclusive. Morality (like many other things) can be both. Another example would be anger. Anger is inherent to all humans (we all feel it), but it is also learned. The particular things that make you angry will depend on many factors.

 

otherwise there would not be so much evil in the world.

Your version of evil isn't everybody else's version. There are striking anthropological examples of this. Ancient tribes in Africa believe a father's life force is contained in his semen. A woman who wants too much sex from her man is considered evil for wanting to drain (or steal) his life force. The father is expected to transfer his life force to his son by ejaculating in his mouth. Here in the west we would consider these things immoral or even amoral. They do not.

 

Are you only capable of seeing this as those people not having any morality? Or, can you see that they have a morality that is different from your own?

 

Most of the civilized world adheres to morality expressed through their religions.

Even if this were true it wouldn't mean that morality came from religion or that without religion there would be no morality. All this means is that religion tends to express issues of morality - not that it's the source. Just because everybody's name is in the phone book doesn't mean the telephone company named everybody or that none of us would have names if there were no phone book.

 

As far as I know, the current generation of inhabitants of the civilized world had strong religious

influences from churches, families, peers, and society.

 

and the church is influenced by the morality of the day. All the things that the church used to preach in regards to morality have changed. Society has changed and religion changed because of it.

 

~modest

[modest]

What is moral about killing fetuses?

The Spartan religion told them to throw the weaker fetuses off a cliff.

What is moral about letting vicious killers escape the death penalty?

In the Christian bible God tells Joshua to kill every man, woman, and child in Jericho. Joshua (the baby killer) escaped the death penalty.

 

In other words, these specific beliefs (regardless if they are for or against) do nothing to support your claims regarding religion being the source for morality.

 

~modest

[bonsaikc]

 

What is moral about killing fetuses? What is moral about letting vicious killers escape the death penalty? What morality is man naturally born with?

Do you think morality encompasses all of man's endeavors?

 

 

So I guess you were fortunate enough to grow up in an atheistic home that hated religion?

 

So I see I did NOT assume too much. You are assuming that your particular moral code is the universally "correct" one, when it is only one of many.

 

I believe morality encompasses man's endeavors when he acts in his enlightened self-interest. I do believe that some things are immoral, not the least of which is requiring the actual to be slave to the potential. I won't presume to tell a woman who finds herself horrified at the prospect of another child that she must be a slave for the next 20 years. At the same time I understand that there is a moral difference between a freshly-fertilized egg and a fetus about to be delivered full-term.

 

What is moral about equating that freshly-fertilized egg (not even a zygote yet) with the adult human being in which it resides? "When does life begin" is a religious question. If you decide it begins at conception, I hope you will be true to your religion and not have an abortion.

[pamela]

I would like to interject, if I may...

When identifying ourselves on a conscious level, I am reminded of sentience versus sapience. I as a human animal, instinctively reach out to my mother for nuturing.This is inherent.I, again as animal, would kill in order to protect my child.

Morality would tell me that it is wrong to kill, and hence i would be incarcerated for depriving life.Am I wrong to protect? I would gladly go to jail as my natural instinct would be the priority here. Having learned knowledge and evolving conviction and guilt, choices to be made are based upon morality. I believe sapience to have evolved in us, directing us to choose that which is right over wrong.

The choice is the individual, not the collective. Religion does not kill, man does.Religion does not love, we love.

We choose to follow a moral set of standards, or not.

[questor]

Being male, I have not yet had to resort to an abortion.

 

Modest, why don't you continue believing the way you do and let's move on? You have said nothing to change my mind, and obviously I have not persuaded you. No need to waste more time. Anti-religionists always want to deny any good ever came from religion, even though they usually grew up in a religious atmosphere. They concentrate on the failings of religion rather than seeing the larger positive benefits of the good parts.