Morality Defined

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As our understanding of the universe has improved, the god of the gaps has eroded to nearly nothing.

Then explain why religious and spiritual belief in something greater than self, has never been higher in the history of mankind? This seems to completely contradict your contention that we have an "erosion" of any kind. If anything, we have a "rise" in religious belief and faith. 96% of the world, believes in some power greater than self.

Some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known, did not dismiss the possibility of "God" or the existence of such and entity. Einstein clearly stated that "GOD doesn't roll the dice." When you read what the question was, you get the message that Einstein not only believed in a supreme intelligent designer, but couldn't rationalize how one could conclude our existence without one. Sir Isaac Newton spent the later years of his life, translating the Hebrew scriptures and is largely responsible for modern Protestant interpretations of The Bible. It is abundantly clear he would not have done this, if he didn't believe in a God.

I will agree, we are in our "childhood" as a species. There are far more things we DON'T know, than what we DO know. Which is why I think it is exceptionally foolish to dismiss the possibility of something we may simply not yet understand, or be capable of understanding. Particularly when you can draw a direct correlation between harmonious human balance, morality, happiness, success, and mental well-being, with the belief in something greater than self. Particularly when you look at the diverse complexity of the universe, and how it functions. Why would any rational mind completely dismiss this possibility from any consideration?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Then explain why religious and spiritual belief in something greater than self, has never been higher in the history of mankind?

The propaganda of the theocrats is at a fever pitch? Alternative theories of morality are classified as demon worship or socialism?

This seems to completely contradict your contention that we have an "erosion" of any kind. If anything, we have a "rise" in religious belief and faith. 96% of the world, believes in some power greater than self.

Popular lies are still just lies.

Some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known, did not dismiss the possibility of "God" or the existence of such and entity. Einstein clearly stated that "GOD doesn't roll the dice." When you read what the question was, you get the message that Einstein not only believed in a supreme intelligent designer, but couldn't rationalize how one could conclude our existence without one. Sir Isaac Newton spent the later years of his life, translating the Hebrew scriptures and is largely responsible for modern Protestant interpretations of The Bible. It is abundantly clear he would not have done this, if he didn't believe in a God.

Nobody want your new age fascist theocracy, ok wilbur?

I will agree, we are in our "childhood" as a species. There are far more things we DON'T know, than what we DO know. Which is why I think it is exceptionally foolish to dismiss the possibility of something we may simply not yet understand, or be capable of understanding. Particularly when you can draw a direct correlation between harmonious human balance, morality, happiness, success, and mental well-being, with the belief in something greater than self. Particularly when you look at the diverse complexity of the universe, and how it functions. Why would any rational mind completely dismiss this possibility from any consideration?

We're talking about religion. Religion is a man made institution having little to do with truth, morality, or happiness, or something big.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe morality is behavior which facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. And when someone does not give you this consideration, you do not owe it back to them. The deals off.

This is not a definition of Morality. It is based on the selfish pretense that someone owes you something for your "moral" behavior. The main problem with your argument is, perception of the individuals. What you see as "mutually beneficial" is not the same thing as I might see. What I think or determine I might "owe" you in return for your beneficial cooperation, might be completely different than what you think you are "owed." If all Morality were based on this concept, it would fail unless we also adopted a Morality Court to decide who got what from whom.


No, Morality is the selfless act of doing what you know to be good and right because of a faith or belief in something, without the expectations of anything in return. This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God, but it doesn't preclude it either. It can be a simple belief and faith in the laws of nature, principles of social contract, or whatever.... but Morality does require faith and trust, or belief in something. It couldn't exist without it, and wouldn't have "evolved" into mankind otherwise.

 

[uscitizen]

Don't tear Dixie up so bad he runs away anyold. He is fun to have around as an inverse moral compass.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

This is not a definition of Morality.

It's the new definition after we cleanse the human lexicon from the words that facilitate fascism, elitism and theocracy.

It is based on the selfish pretense that someone owes you something for your "moral" behavior.

I understand you want to transform people into noahide killbots, sacrificing for the collective, but that precisely the kind of trash thinking we're combatting here today.

The main problem with your argument is, perception of the individuals. What you see as "mutually beneficial" is not the same thing as I might see.

Ideational crap. this is crap you've spewed here. What's good for people in the most basic terms is not difficult. I tend to look at mere biological requirements, and I reject nihilism, so "good for people" means allowing them the ability to increase their means for perpetuation of their own families in the long term, and having the political power to substantively change their world when their environment is no longer fulfilling these needs.

What I think or determine I might "owe" you in return for your beneficial cooperation, might be completely different than what you think you are "owed." If all Morality were based on this concept, it would fail unless we also adopted a Morality Court to decide who got what from whom.

You mean like a judicial system? We have one.

No, Morality is the selfless act of doing what you know to be good and right because of a faith or belief in something, without the expectations of anything in return.

But how does one assess good and right? Whatever god says? You're kind of avoiding the question.

This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God, but it doesn't preclude it either. It can be a simple belief and faith in the laws of nature, principles of social contract, or whatever.... but Morality does require faith and trust, or belief in something. It couldn't exist without it, and wouldn't have "evolved" into mankind otherwise.

If you want to call faith in the laws of nature a religion, than you can have that new level of retardation and backpedalling. I reject it out of hand, of course, because of how stupid it is.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie = bent over once again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie: "The main problem with your argument is, perception of the individuals. What you see as "mutually beneficial" is not the same thing as I might see."

Ideational crap. this is crap you've spewed here. What's good for people in the most basic terms is not difficult. I tend to look at mere biological requirements, and I reject nihilism, so "good for people" means allowing them the ability to increase their means for perpetuation of their own families in the long term, and having the political power to substantively change their world when their environment is no longer fulfilling these needs.

Ideational? WTF? What is "good" for people in the most basic terms, is completely subjective depending on the individual and their beliefs. For example, you go on to state what YOU believe.... what YOU "look at" ...what YOU "reject" ....and these are the basis for what YOU believe is "good or bad." They do not represent MY views. We may find common agreement on some things, but 'Morality' is not, nor ever has been, universal.

Dixie: "No, Morality is the selfless act of doing what you know to be good and right because of a faith or belief in something, without the expectations of anything in return."
But how does one assess good and right? Whatever god says? You're kind of avoiding the question.

The very next sentence reads: This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God... So if you had read that far, before you had your knee-jerk reaction, you may have become less ignorant and made less of a fool of yourself... you should really work on that.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Ideational? WTF? What is "good" for people in the most basic terms, is completely subjective depending on the individual and their beliefs.

No it's not.

For example, you go on to state what YOU believe.... what YOU "look at" ...what YOU "reject" ....and these are the basis for what YOU believe is "good or bad."

Me believing poison kills doesn't make it merely a matter of opinion.

They do not represent MY views. We may find common agreement on some things, but 'Morality' is not, nor ever has been, universal.

Not in this universe. That's true.

The very next sentence reads: This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God... So if you had read that far, before you had your knee-jerk reaction, you may have become less ignorant and made less of a fool of yourself... you should really work on that.

Please have a point when you write.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No it's not.

"No it's not." is an invalid counterpoint in debate.

Me believing poison kills doesn't make it merely a matter of opinion.

No, but you believing something is poison that 96% of the world doesn't believe is poison, and thinking it kills with no basis to support that view, is an opinion.

Not in this universe. That's true.

Glad we agree Morality is not universal in this universe.

Please have a point when you write.

I always have a point. Your lack of finding, not withstanding.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

"No it's not." is an invalid counterpoint in debate.

no it's not.

No, but you believing something is poison that 96% of the world doesn't believe is poison, and thinking it kills with no basis to support that view, is an opinion.

Im talking about actual poison.

Glad we agree Morality is not universal in this universe.




I always have a point. Your lack of finding, not withstanding.

Needledick in a haystack.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no it's not.

Yes it is.

Im talking about actual poison.

You ARE actual poison!

Needledick in a haystack.

Needlehead in a hole, is more like it.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Then explain why religious and spiritual belief in something greater than self, has never been higher in the history of mankind? This seems to completely contradict your contention that we have an "erosion" of any kind. If anything, we have a "rise" in religious belief and faith. 96% of the world, believes in some power greater than self.

Who explains things by means of god anymore?

Nobody believes that storms are controlled by Zeus, or that Ra brings the sunrise in his giant chariot. The god of the gaps is eroded to nothing. Mainstream christians, for example, only attribute to god to some ambigious idea of it being the genesis of evolution. God explains very little. Observation has seen to that.

God, the great comforter, however, is still strong. Provider of moral guidlines, a father figure in the sky, the soother of the final mystery, death. In uncertain times this manifestation of god always thrives as it feeds on human weakness.

Some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known, did not dismiss the possibility of "God" or the existence of such and entity. Einstein clearly stated that "GOD doesn't roll the dice." When you read what the question was, you get the message that Einstein not only believed in a supreme intelligent designer, but couldn't rationalize how one could conclude our existence without one. Sir Isaac Newton spent the later years of his life, translating the Hebrew scriptures and is largely responsible for modern Protestant interpretations of The Bible. It is abundantly clear he would not have done this, if he didn't believe in a God.

What does this demonstrate? If I can produce three great scientists who didn't believe in the creation myth, do I win?

I will agree, we are in our "childhood" as a species. There are far more things we DON'T know, than what we DO know.

How do you know this?

Which is why I think it is exceptionally foolish to dismiss the possibility of something we may simply not yet understand, or be capable of understanding.

Do you not see what is wrong with the logic here?

That because we do not know everything therefore there must be something there?

We can only know through experience. Would you, to use the old adage, believe in a spaghetti monster soley on the basis that you haven't looked everywhere yet?

Particularly when you can draw a direct correlation between harmonious human balance, morality, happiness, success, and mental well-being, with the belief in something greater than self. Particularly when you look at the diverse complexity of the universe, and how it functions. Why would any rational mind completely dismiss this possibility from any consideration?

Wow, you crammed quite a few notions into these last few sentences.

"direct correlation between harmonious human balance, morality, happiness, success, and mental well-being, with the belief in something greater than self."

Religious people are more successful, happy, moral, balanced and mentally well than non-religious people?

Care to substantiate this?

"Particularly when you look at the diverse complexity of the universe, and how it functions. "

The irreducible complexity notion? The non-sequiter fallacy that because thing are complex and diverse they therefore must be the work of a designer?

Paley's Watchmaker analogy has been shown as false for nearly a century Dixie.

"Why would any rational mind completely dismiss this possibility from any consideration?"

What makes you think that it has been dismissed without consideration?

 

[AnyOldIron]

No, Morality is the selfless act of doing what you know to be good and right because of a faith or belief in something, without the expectations of anything in return. This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God, but it doesn't preclude it either. It can be a simple belief and faith in the laws of nature, principles of social contract, or whatever.... but Morality does require faith and trust, or belief in something. It couldn't exist without it, and wouldn't have "evolved" into mankind otherwise.

This is one of many ideas of morality Dixie.

AHZ is correct that morality (codes of conduct) evolved through mutually beneficial acts, hunting for example, or defence.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Yes it is.

It's fine to say ,"no it's not" in a discussion. If you care to ask me why I believe something isn't so, you can pursue that line of questioning. But to say that the mere act of disagreeing is out of bounds is the act of a totalitarian.


Keep up the good work, nazi shithead.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Ideational? WTF? What is "good" for people in the most basic terms, is completely subjective depending on the individual and their beliefs. For example, you go on to state what YOU believe.... what YOU "look at" ...what YOU "reject" ....and these are the basis for what YOU believe is "good or bad." They do not represent MY views. We may find common agreement on some things, but 'Morality' is not, nor ever has been, universal.

See, you are not a conservative, Dix. We actually believe in universal morality.

A logical fallacy to consider:
Q: You believe that morality and truth are relative
A: Yes
Q: And you believe this absolutely?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, Morality is the selfless act of doing what you know to be good and right because of a faith or belief in something, without the expectations of anything in return. This doesn't necessarily mean a belief and faith in a God, but it doesn't preclude it either. It can be a simple belief and faith in the laws of nature, principles of social contract, or whatever.... but Morality does require faith and trust, or belief in something. It couldn't exist without it, and wouldn't have "evolved" into mankind otherwise.

This is one of many ideas of morality Dixie.

AHZ is correct that morality (codes of conduct) evolved through mutually beneficial acts, hunting for example, or defence.

No, they didn't, and couldn't have. Nature and the laws of Darwin prohibit it. You can believe this if you like, but you can't prove it with rational thought. The original act of human morality was based on faith, trust, and belief in something. We don't have to assume that was "religious" or "spiritual" but we do have to conclude it was faith, trust, and belief in something. Morality is a behavioral trait with no physical or physiological benefit to the species, therefore it defies Darwinism for it to have been a product of natural selection. Studying the theories of Darwin, it would seem that Morality falls into the category of "artificial" selection.

Morality most likely emerged as the result of observation of tribal spiritual rituals and customs, and the faith and trust in those customs or the associated behaviors attributable to them. We don't "know" this, but it would make logical sense for this to have been the case. Had mankind not had this to observe, the primitive laws of nature would have precluded morality, and it would have never come into existence. Observe wild animals in nature, they do not practice human morality, and this would have been the only other thing mankind would have had to observe or base his trust and faith upon, in attempting moral behavior. It defies rational logic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Who explains things by means of god anymore?

Nobody believes that storms are controlled by Zeus, or that Ra brings the sunrise in his giant chariot. The god of the gaps is eroded to nothing. Mainstream christians, for example, only attribute to god to some ambigious idea of it being the genesis of evolution. God explains very little. Observation has seen to that.

God is not intended to "explain" things, although that has always been your contention for why he exists. You simply proved by this, it is an invalid argument.

God, the great comforter, however, is still strong. Provider of moral guidlines, a father figure in the sky, the soother of the final mystery, death. In uncertain times this manifestation of god always thrives as it feeds on human weakness.

Whatever you say, but the fact remains, 96% of this planet believes in something greater than self. Even with all the "observations" and scientific findings, dispelling of ancient myths, wars to extinguish religious belief, there are still 96% of the inhabitants of this planet who firmly believe in something greater than self.

What does this demonstrate? If I can produce three great scientists who didn't believe in the creation myth, do I win?

It demonstrates that Science and scientific minds, indeed, our greatest ones, have not discounted or dismissed the possibility of an intelligent designer. You can give me three who are Atheist, but that will only prove that scientific minds have not dismissed the possibility that there isn't an intelligent designer.

How do you know this?

Suicides, clinical depression, alcoholism, and life expectancy are all worse among people who are not closely associated with religious belief.

Do you not see what is wrong with the logic here?

That because we do not know everything therefore there must be something there?

We can only know through experience. Would you, to use the old adage, believe in a spaghetti monster soley on the basis that you haven't looked everywhere yet?

No, I don't see a thing wrong with MY logic. I simply stated that we don't know everything, and shouldn't discount possibilities of what we may not yet understand. What is flawed about that? Isn't that at the root of scientific principle? How arrogant are you to believe, since you can prove where storms come from, it means it's proof there is no God?

Wow, you crammed quite a few notions into these last few sentences.

"direct correlation between harmonious human balance, morality, happiness, success, and mental well-being, with the belief in something greater than self."

Religious people are more successful, happy, moral, balanced and mentally well than non-religious people?

Care to substantiate this?

Nope... look around, there are plenty of examples. If you are too ignorant to believe it, nothing I can show you will make you believe it.

"Particularly when you look at the diverse complexity of the universe, and how it functions. "

The irreducible complexity notion? The non-sequiter fallacy that because thing are complex and diverse they therefore must be the work of a designer?

Let's stop a moment and correct an inaccurate attribute you keep tagging onto my comments, okay? I have never said X, therefore, Y... That is your evaluation of things I have said, and it is intellectually dishonest and wrong to continue your inaccurate assessment. I've not claimed anything "must be" anything, just that there is a possibility, and it behooves us as humans to not close our minds to possibility, as you have done.

Paley's Watchmaker analogy has been shown as false for nearly a century Dixie.

How do you show an analogy to be false? I don't get that.

"Why would any rational mind completely dismiss this possibility from any consideration?"

What makes you think that it has been dismissed without consideration?

Because that is basically ALL you've done through this entire post! All I have stated is that we should consider any and all possibilities, and you have twisted it into something you can bash and trash and reject. YOU are the one being blindly ignorant here, not me. I am willing to listen to any and all ideas, to consider any and all possibilities, including that of an intelligent designer... you, sir, are the one who is not willing to consider this.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie, what does it mean to "believe in something greater than yourself" ? Greater in what way? Containing more mass?

I believe in a great vision, it may be greater than me, a world where people abandon lie based religio-totalitarianism (including new age internationalist hokum) and go to true morality, which is embracing behaviors and attitudes which facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

See. The religious folk and even the New Age Internationalist Theocrats like dixie need us to believe that without their version of morality the world would fall apart. With dixie, his New Age Religion focuses mainly around internationalist fascism and some shit about sparks in some clay or some shit.

 

[a11n]

why couldn't we have the religion of the japanese whos country means more than their own llife? why did we have to have the weak religion?