In a series of studies, scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer sympathy and selfless help to others, and even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html)

Morality may have roots in our primate ancestors
Monkeys and apes have a basic sense of right and wrong, a new study suggests.

By Sarah Knapton
Published: 6:13PM GMT 15 Feb 2009

Although morality has always been viewed as a human trait that sets us apart from the animals, it now appears our closest ancestors share the same scruples.

Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations.

Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given.

Professor Frans de Waal, who led the study at Emory University in Georgia, US, said: "I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals."

In tests carried out by Prof de Waal, the primates were given a set of tasks to carry out and rewarded with food and affection.

But researchers discovered that the animals strongly objected if they perceived others were being rewarded more than themselves for the same task. Some even sulked or refused to take part any further.

A separate study found chimpanzees spontaneously helped both humans and each other during controlled tests.

Prof De Waal suggests the traits may have developed through natural selection. Some anthropologists believe a sense of morality developed during the last ice age when humans were forced to band together to survive in an increasingly hostile environment.

Ah, yes; The Disney view of animals.

Ah, yes; The Disney view of animals.

:lmao:

Ah, yes; The Disney view of animals.

Why is the view from one fairy tale less valid than the view from the another?

Why is the view from one fairy tale less valid than the view from the another?

:lol:


Touche!

I have to be contrary and argue that the examples cited aren't morals but feelings. Love, empathy, jealousy are all feelings. Morals are rules that one lives by, no sex out of marriage, not stealing, not killing, etc. I'm not shocked at all that primates have feelings; my dog has feelings and she's a :boxorocks:. :shrug:

I have to be contrary and argue that the examples cited aren't morals but feelings. Love, empathy, jealousy are all feelings. Morals are rules that one lives by, no sex out of marriage, not stealing, not killing, etc. I'm not shocked at all that primates have feelings; my dog has feelings and she's a :boxorocks:. :shrug:

Based on the Websters definition of Morals (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morals) the above are examples of both emotions and morals.

Based on the Websters definition of Morals (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morals) the above are examples of both emotions and morals.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think that they are different and I don't see anything in that definition in regards to my comment on your original post that makes me change my mind. :neener: :huggy:

We will have to agree to disagree. I think that they are different and I don't see anything in that definition in regards to my comment on your original post that makes me change my mind. :neener: :huggy:

Thats cause you are too sickly and thin (http://forums.somd.com/chit-chat/178485-why-do-chubby-women.html)

:evil:

I have to be contrary and argue that the examples cited aren't morals but feelings. Love, empathy, jealousy are all feelings. Morals are rules that one lives by, no sex out of marriage, not stealing, not killing, etc. I'm not shocked at all that primates have feelings; my dog has feelings and she's a :boxorocks:. :shrug:

From another article on the same subject...

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Jumping in water to save one of your own, Not getting food because it causes harm to others... Those are morals.

From another article on the same subject...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Jumping in water to save one of your own, Not getting food because it causes harm to others... Those are morals.

Some have falsely argued only Religious people have morals. That Atheists only obey societal standards because they are selfish and dont want to go to jail (never mind that theists only reason for obeying standards is due to hell).

Since Apes, Monkeys and Dolphins have also been observed to display morals, you gotta wonder what religion they follow.

From another article on the same subject...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Jumping in water to save one of your own, Not getting food because it causes harm to others... Those are morals.

Gosh. Subjecting a monkey to a condition where, for several days, he can only be fed if he shocks another makes me wonder if the scientist has any morals.

P. S. to Knucklesack: I'm curious why this is in the religion forum. Religion and morals are not the same. (Though the subject is pretty interesting.) You must have been answering as I was typing...But I stand by my opinion that morals and religion are not the same.

Some have falsely argued only Religious people have morals. That Atheists only obey societal standards because they are selfish and dont want to go to jail (never mind that theists only reason for obeying standards is due to hell).

Since Apes, Monkeys and Dolphins have also been observed to display morals, you gotta wonder what religion they follow.I think the argument is generally that religion provides a moral standard that is unchanging. The moral standards are, well, standard.

The basis for each atheist's morals is whatever that particular atheist feels is correct at the moment, and is variable based on that atheist's mood, life experience, etc., etc. An atheist's moral standard is, well, not a standard at all over time.

This is where the phrase moral relativity comes in to play. What may be okay in one instance is not okay in another, or when compared to what could be worse.

Gosh. Subjecting a monkey to a condition where, for several days, he can only be fed if he shocks another makes me wonder if the scientist has any morals.

P. S. to Knucklesack: I'm curious why this is in the religion forum. Religion and morals are not the same. (Though the subject is pretty interesting.) You must have been answering as I was typing...But I stand by my opinion that morals and religion are not the same.

You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwise

Some have falsely argued only Religious people have morals. That Atheists only obey societal standards because they are selfish and dont want to go to jail (never mind that theists only reason for obeying standards is due to hell).

Since Apes, Monkeys and Dolphins have also been observed to display morals, you gotta wonder what religion they follow.

I've always argued that all people have morals, but my argument stems from whence do the morals come. It really has nothing to do with religion per se, but rather the inherent human knowledge of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, etc., which could not have evolved...but, then again, maybe they did. I'll be keeping a close eye on these studies. Fascinating stuff. :yay:

You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwise

Amusing though you two may be, I think we all realize that you and This_person are not a "match made in Heaven". Maybe you can both let it go and stop chasing each other around the forums to fight over every thing. (that's just my opinon, though. If you guys feel the need to fight to the internet death then PARTY ON!):coffee:

From another article on the same subject...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Jumping in water to save one of your own, Not getting food because it causes harm to others... Those are morals.

No, those are feelings. Having to sacrifice oneself to save another that you can not save is in not a moral choice and could actually be looked upon as the opposite (not taking ones own life). The later could be looked at as a moral if the monkey was causing direct harm to another in order to get food but since that's not the case it's only empathy in not wanting to hurt another.

Amusing though you two may be, I think we all realize that you and This_person are not a "match made in Heaven". Maybe you can both let it go and stop chasing each other around the forums to fight over every thing. (that's just my opinon, though. If you guys feel the need to fight to the internet death then PARTY ON!):coffee:

:shrug: I have no need to respond to his unfounded and inaccurate personal attacks. I'll let people read my substantive posts on the subjects and make up their own minds.

Amusing though you two may be, I think we all realize that you and This_person are not a "match made in Heaven". Maybe you can both let it go and stop chasing each other around the forums to fight over every thing. (that's just my opinon, though. If you guys feel the need to fight to the internet death then PARTY ON!):coffee:

I dont respond to him very often any more, though i do notice he posts in my threads. Maybe you should take that up with him?

I've always argued that all people have morals, but my argument stems from whence do the morals come. It really has nothing to do with religion per se, but rather the inherent human knowledge of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, etc., which could not have evolved...but, then again, maybe they did. I'll be keeping a close eye on these studies. Fascinating stuff. :yay:

I know, and thats why i didnt throw a blanket statement that all theists believe the same as the misguided.

:yay:

You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwiseOnce again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is :lol:

In a series of studies, scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer sympathy and selfless help to others, and even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html)

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?
the same place that it says Cain married his sister or cousin, the same place that says fathers can have sex with their daughters if the mother is no longer having sex with the father, the same place that says I asked Vrai to remove/move his posts - in Nuck's imagination only.

Once again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is :lol:

Once again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is :lol:
Your right, it really is obvious who This_Misrepresentation really is.
Atheists do not act within "morals", because they don't have any. They have society's rules of conduct, but those aren't "morals". That doesn't mean they act incorrectly, just not out of morals.

Well i guess your right, when you stated Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle (http://forums.somd.com/religion/120645-sunday-school-atheists-12.html#post2527191) you werent trying to claim morals were a construct of religion.

I mean it wasnt obvious when you posted all kinds of examples of religions/beliefs and how they had a foundation of value. But heres the really cute part, this was you, wasnt it? posted:

I believe atheists have an equation for what determines life, a belief in man's thoughts and theories to try and determine how life works - but no deeper foundation for what makes up right and wrong and therefore no foundation for morals and values. Without a belief system, life can have no higher meaning..

See here is the confusion, when you stated

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.
That wasnt you claiming morals come from Religion?

Are you sure? Because further on you stated:

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.
It really sounds as if your saying Atheists (withouth religion) cant be moral, since morals are religious based and Atheists dont have religion.

Nope... I'm pretty sure your saying morals come from Religion

Hell, just as with every other topic you post in, your dishonesty comes back and bites ya

See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.

Your right, it really is obvious who This_Misrepresentation really is.


Well i guess your right, when you stated Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle (http://forums.somd.com/religion/120645-sunday-school-atheists-12.html#post2527191) you werent trying to claim morals were a construct of religion.

I mean it wasnt obvious when you posted all kinds of examples of religions/beliefs and how they had a foundation of value. But heres the really cute part, this was you, wasnt it? posted:


See here is the confusion, when you stated


That wasnt you claiming morals come from Religion?

Are you sure? Because further on you stated:

It really sounds as if your saying Atheists (withouth religion) cant be moral, since morals are religious based and Atheists dont have religion.

Nope... I'm pretty sure your saying morals come from Religion

Hell, just as with every other topic you post in, your dishonesty comes back and bites ya

And, here's where we get into the semantics again.

You said:You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwiseTo which I askedCan you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?Now, to prove I said they're the same thing, you show a bunch of times where I said the foundation of morals comes from religion. That's not what I asked for, nor what you accused me of.

What I said goes right along with what I said in this thread, which is:I think the argument is generally that religion provides a moral standard that is unchanging. The moral standards are, well, standard.

The basis for each atheist's morals is whatever that particular atheist feels is correct at the moment, and is variable based on that atheist's mood, life experience, etc., etc. An atheist's moral standard is, well, not a standard at all over time.

This is where the phrase moral relativity comes in to play. What may be okay in one instance is not okay in another, or when compared to what could be worse.

Morals are not religion, religion is not morals.

Morals are a standard by which one lives. Religious morals are constant, atheists "morals" are variable, based on the atheist's mood.

Morals and religion, what you claimed I said originally, is neither what I said, nor what you "proved" I said.

But, that's not a shock.

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.That's right, because cattle do whatever feels right to them at the time, or whatever will keep them in good standing with the herd.

This is why people suggest that religions "change with the times", because they don't understand that morals are a constant for a religion, not a fad.

And, here's where we get into the semantics again.

You said:To which I askedNow, to prove I said they're the same thing, you show a bunch of times where I said the foundation of morals comes from religion. That's not what I asked for, nor what you accused me of.

What I said goes right along with what I said in this thread, which is:

Morals are not religion, religion is not morals.

Morals are a standard by which one lives. Religious morals are constant, atheists "morals" are variable, based on the atheist's mood.

Morals and religion, what you claimed I said originally, is neither what I said, nor what you "proved" I said.

But, that's not a shock.

We're not falling for it, you and I both know that i was replying to Im_Me in response to Religion and Morals and the fact that some of the misguided feel morals are/were created by Religion. In other words without Religion there would be no Morals.

You know this was the theme of the conversation, especially since the very first post in this thread is how Morals do exist in Nature, without any Religion to guide, create or support a Moral code. When you were called on it, you thought you could refute it by claiming you never stated such a thing, but either forgot or didnt realize that you had posited this very thing yourself.

Yet instead of admitting you did claim Morals are a product of Religion, you go off on yet another of your non-related diatribes. Its nothing more than we expect from you, sadly you'll probably never realize you have alot in with the liberals you claim to be against.

Even though you think Morals are dependent on Religon, as i quoted you stating numerous times, go ahead and continue to ignore evidence that should logically lead you to believe otherwise. Intellectual Honestyh has never been your "thing", when you get caught in a logic trap of your own making you rely upon your non-sequitor arguments, out of context quotes, or blatant misrepresentations of what a posters point is.

So go ahead and continue with your selective editing, the fault is clearly mine. i attempted to treat you like an adult who is capable of admitting a mistake and owning up for their own error. This wont happen again, you'll be relegated to the same status as Nono, Forestal, NHBoy, Andy and every other libtard poster, who would rather make posts befitting a forum Troll, instead of someone interesting in discussion.

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.

Why does having a religion have to follow having a conscience or vice versa? If that were the case I would say you have no conscience since you don’t believe in a religion.

But since animals can’t really communicate with humans I think it’s safe to say “we don’t know”. In all reality, at this point, I don’t care. I’m still struggling to figure out the conscience of humans (or lack thereof in many cases).

But my arguments on morals and religion are that they both go hand-in-hand. One didn’t create (or result from) the other. Perhaps it’s the “chicken or the egg” debate. Which came first? Of course it’s quite obvious that some can have morals without believing in a God. But do you have those morals out of a vacuum or are they in you from a God that instilled those morals in us from creation? Just as God created us with a conscience and morals He also created us with choice. You chose not to believe. That certainly doesn’t make you an amoral person. And because I believe doesn’t mean I have more morals than you. God created us all the same. The only differentiating factor being our desire to chose.

We're not falling for it, you and I both know that i was replying to Im_Me in response to Religion and Morals and the fact that some of the misguided feel morals are/were created by Religion. In other words without Religion there would be no Morals. Of course there would be morals. As I've repeatedly said, morals are the standards by which one lives.

The difference would be that the morals would be variable, based on mood, social norms of the time, what you can get away with without being caught, etc.You know this was the theme of the conversation, especially since the very first post in this thread is how Morals do exist in Nature, without any Religion to guide, create or support a Moral code. When you were called on it, you thought you could refute it by claiming you never stated such a thing, but either forgot or didnt realize that you had posited this very thing yourself.But, that's not what was suggested. You suggested that I think morals and religion are the same thing.

Now, maybe words don't mean much to you, but they mean something to me. I do suggest that consistent morals, a foundation that is standard and solid, comes from religious moral codes, as opposed to the atheist moral code which consists of whatever feels good at the moment. I don't deny that at all. But, that doesn't mean I think morals and religion are the same thing, which is what you claimed my stance was.

Words matter, and how you communicate matters.Yet instead of admitting you did claim Morals are a product of Religion, you go off on yet another of your non-related diatribes. Its nothing more than we expect from you, sadly you'll probably never realize you have alot in with the liberals you claim to be against. But, I don't claim morals are a product of religion. I claim consistent morals are. Standards that are unchanging. Not "if it feels good, do it" morals that atheists have.

Again, I've suggested that many morals from religions are abhorant to me. I've used the woman who was stoned in the Middle East for allowing herself to be raped as an example - they attacked the victim of a horrendous crime because she allowed herself to be put into a position where she could be raped. That is their religious moral code, and I find it despicable. But, it's consistent, hard, strongly felt by their religion, and that makes it a strong moral code - just in conflict with my own.Even though you think Morals are dependent on Religon, as i quoted you stating numerous times, go ahead and continue to ignore evidence that should logically lead you to believe otherwise. Intellectual Honestyh has never been your "thing", when you get caught in a logic trap of your own making you rely upon your non-sequitor arguments, out of context quotes, or blatant misrepresentations of what a posters point is.Well, I will agree that the first post you found, from Dec 2007, was poorly worded on my own side. I was trying to suggest the difference between a consistent moral code from religion and an inconsistent moral code, or standard of conduct, that society would provide an atheist. I will admit I could have worded that better. It's still consistent, in context of the whole discussion, with what I'm saying here, but I could have worded it better so that when you take it out of context it would be more difficult for you to misrepresent it.

As for the second quote you brought up from me, let's look at the whole thing:I absolutely do NOT think that Christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values.

I believe that Christians have a deep foundation for determining right and wrong, that determination being what makes up morals and values to a Christian.

However, I believe that the ancient Greeks had a foundation also. I disagree with Zues being the almighty, but they had a foundation to make up their morals and values.

I believe Wiccans have a foundation that make up their beliefs of right and wrong - those beliefs making up their determinations of morals and values.

I believe atheists have an equation for what determines life, a belief in man's thoughts and theories to try and determine how life works - but no deeper foundation for what makes up right and wrong and therefore no foundation for morals and values. Without a belief system, life can have no higher meaning.


I told you I'd give you my theory when you answered. You haven't answered (or, rather, you have by being unable to give me an answer). My theory is that American atheists are surrounded by religious people (83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians - I'll find the poll again if you dispute), and that atheists have been surrounded by values and morals so much they've adopted the bigger picture of the religious people's morals and values as their own while declaring they don't believe in the system that gives the morals. And, they don't even realize it.Now, why did you leave that bolded line out? Is it because it directly refutes what you're trying to ascribe to me? :lol: But, you suggest it is I who misrepresent :lmao:

The rest of the quotes merely mirror everything I've said in this thread, so there's no point in going over it again and again and again.So go ahead and continue with your selective editing, the fault is clearly mine. i attempted to treat you like an adult who is capable of admitting a mistake and owning up for their own error. This wont happen again, you'll be relegated to the same status as Nono, Forestal, NHBoy, Andy and every other libtard poster, who would rather make posts befitting a forum Troll, instead of someone interesting in discussion.I agree the fault is yours, but in a whole different way than you suggest.

Why does having a religion have to follow having a conscience or vice versa? If that were the case I would say you have no conscience since you don’t believe in a religion.
So we're clear, your equating Conscience with Morals?

But since animals can’t really communicate with humans I think it’s safe to say “we don’t know”. In all reality, at this point, I don’t care. I’m still struggling to figure out the conscience of humans (or lack thereof in many cases).
Thats why the study and article, states it is based on the observations of the events that occurred.
But my arguments on morals and religion are that they both go hand-in-hand. One didn’t create (or result from) the other. Perhaps it’s the “chicken or the egg” debate. Which came first? Of course it’s quite obvious that some can have morals without believing in a God. But do you have those morals out of a vacuum or are they in you from a God that instilled those morals in us from creation? Just as God created us with a conscience and morals He also created us with choice. You chose not to believe. That certainly doesn’t make you an amoral person. And because I believe doesn’t mean I have more morals than you. God created us all the same. The only differentiating factor being our desire to chose.
That is the reason for posting the article. Its hard to claim that Morals stem from religion, when its been observed that Animals also seem to display moralistic traits.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

If morals are natural, how do you explain Congress?

I believe that the ability to have morals is inborn. That we are able to understand and adhere to a code of conduct. However, the morals themselves can vary from cultures..and even species...so they must be FROM somewhere..arguably somewhere different.

I think the argument is generally that religion provides a moral standard that is unchanging. The moral standards are, well, standard.

The basis for each atheist's morals is whatever that particular atheist feels is correct at the moment, and is variable based on that atheist's mood, life experience, etc., etc. An atheist's moral standard is, well, not a standard at all over time.

This is where the phrase moral relativity comes in to play. What may be okay in one instance is not okay in another, or when compared to what could be worse.

And, here's where we get into the semantics again.

You said:To which I askedNow, to prove I said they're the same thing, you show a bunch of times where I said the foundation of morals comes from religion. That's not what I asked for, nor what you accused me of.

What I said goes right along with what I said in this thread, which is:

Morals are not religion, religion is not morals.

Morals are a standard by which one lives. Religious morals are constant, atheists "morals" are variable, based on the atheist's mood.

Morals and religion, what you claimed I said originally, is neither what I said, nor what you "proved" I said.

But, that's not a shock.



:roflmao: Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

:killingme

:roflmao: Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

:killingme



I don't think he meant "mood" as in the immediate happy/angry/sad mood. But overall long-term mood. Like "climate" as opposed to "weather".



If that's the case, "mood" is probably poor word choice. Demeanor or somethign similar would be more appropriate.

:roflmao: Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

:killingmeWell, actually, yes.

Now, do I think that on something like killing someone it's easy to adjust the mood sufficiently - no.

But, let's take a smaller, more realistic issue. Let's say stealing, for instance. If you're hungry, and the store clerk is looking the other way while you are penniless, is it okay then to steal a cookie off the shelf?

After you answer the expected, "no, of course not", ask yourself why.

You'll likely answer that you know right from wrong.

Well, okay, how do you know "right" from "wrong"? Think of the four year old that hasn't been fully inculcated into the American culture (which, btw, we have a higher percentage of declared Christians in this country than Isreal has declared Jews) - would that four year old take the cookie, especially if they thought they wouldn't get caught?

You know the answer to that least question is "yes". So, I ask you again, how do you know "right" from "wrong"?

I submit to you that your moral code has been instilled in you through your society, which is primarily Christian. Without that culture, without that moral code that's in your upbringing, I suspect that the average atheist would be like the four year old - because what foundation does the atheist have except their own gut feel, their own culture, their own experiences?

This is the root of my argument - if you believe in nothing, then you have nothing to base your decisions on except yourself. That means what's happened to you, how you feel about things, your own character. Without a society that helped shape and mold that character to norms of right and wrong, where would you be? Like the four year old that hasn't had that happen to them yet.

So we're clear, your equating Conscience with Morals?

Can you have a conscience without morals?

Thats why the study and article, states it is based on the observations of the events that occurred.

Either way I have no problem with believing animals have some sort of moral compass. I’m not sure how this equates to where it is from God or not.

That is the reason for posting the article. Its hard to claim that Morals stem from religion, when its been observed that Animals also seem to display moralistic traits.


Again, how does animals having morals prove or disprove the existence of a God? If animals do have morals who’s to say that they don’t have some sort of belief in God? And just because they don’t behave as we do in congregating to worship this God doesn’t mean they don’t have their form of observance/worship towards God. Perhaps they communicate on a completely different level. We like to use human understanding to explain things animal. The two are starkly different and I think that is the fatal flaw of the human paradigm: somehow things must comply with human understanding and rules. This holds true in explaining the universe in general. We see things from human eyes and are limited to that. Perhaps there are different perspectives that our disbeliefs and ignorance won’t allow us to see.

Can you have a conscience without morals?
Nope, thats why i wanted the clarification. I think we both agree they are either the same or work in tandem, irregardless i wanted to make sure i understood your comment.
Either way I have no problem with believing animals have some sort of moral compass. I’m not sure how this equates to where it is from God or not.
Then that will make a boring discussion without a debate :killingme

Again, how does animals having morals prove or disprove the existence of a God? If animals do have morals who’s to say that they don’t have some sort of belief in God? And just because they don’t behave as we do in congregating to worship this God doesn’t mean they don’t have their form of observance/worship towards God. Perhaps they communicate on a completely different level. We like to use human understanding to explain things animal. The two are starkly different and I think that is the fatal flaw of the human paradigm: somehow things must comply with human understanding and rules. This holds true in explaining the universe in general. We see things from human eyes and are limited to that. Perhaps there are different perspectives that our disbeliefs and ignorance won’t allow us to see.
Once again, i'm not debating whether God gave the animals Morals, this is an example of Morals without Religion (2 different things)

Well, actually, yes.

Now, do I think that on something like killing someone it's easy to adjust the mood sufficiently - no.

But, let's take a smaller, more realistic issue. Let's say stealing, for instance. If you're hungry, and the store clerk is looking the other way while you are penniless, is it okay then to steal a cookie off the shelf?

After you answer the expected, "no, of course not", ask yourself why.

You'll likely answer that you know right from wrong.

Well, okay, how do you know "right" from "wrong"? Think of the four year old that hasn't been fully inculcated into the American culture (which, btw, we have a higher percentage of declared Christians in this country than Isreal has declared Jews) - would that four year old take the cookie, especially if they thought they wouldn't get caught?

You know the answer to that least question is "yes". So, I ask you again, how do you know "right" from "wrong"?

I submit to you that your moral code has been instilled in you through your society, which is primarily Christian. Without that culture, without that moral code that's in your upbringing, I suspect that the average atheist would be like the four year old - because what foundation does the atheist have except their own gut feel, their own culture, their own experiences?

This is the root of my argument - if you believe in nothing, then you have nothing to base your decisions on except yourself. That means what's happened to you, how you feel about things, your own character. Without a society that helped shape and mold that character to norms of right and wrong, where would you be? Like the four year old that hasn't had that happen to them yet.

And yet the animals in the article developed Morals without the fear of Going to Hell to drive them.

Once again, i'm not debating whether God gave the animals Morals, this is an example of Morals without Religion (2 different things)

Gotcha. Mostly certainly we can have morals without religion. But, from my point of view the same God gave us both. That's where we part ways.

And yet the animals in the article developed Morals without the fear of Going to Hell to drive them.
How do you know that?

And, even if true, what did drive them? Are their morals consistent, regardless of their condition, or are they like atheists whose morals have no foundation and vary based on the given conditions?

Gotcha. Mostly certainly we can have morals without religion. But, from my point of view the same God gave us both. That's where we part ways.

No problm

No problem

:fixed: .............. :biggrin:

... like atheists whose morals have no foundation and vary based on the given conditions[/B]?

I'm not sure that's completely fair. I think you can find, even within the Christian faith that certain morals vary from one denomination to the next. As an example:

I knew a guy whose church believed it was sinful to use musical instruments to worhsip God. The only pure music to worship God was the human voice. instruments were created by man, the voice by God.

Yet, they believed it was okay to listen to music by bands that were considered to be Satin Worshipping. My friend and I had this big discussion about it because he liked to listen to bands like Metallica, Slayer, Ozzy Osborne, etc… (DISCLAIMER ALERT: I know those guys probably don’t worship Satan, but their music has been known to be used by Satan Worshipers). Because of their belief, it was okay to listen to music like that as long as it wasn’t used to worship God. It was a twisted kind of thinking.

Now, I know you will contend whether these folks are really Christians or not but they believe they are. Many people within the Catholic faith believe if you are not Catholic you are going to hell. Some denominations believe it’s okay to use birth control, others don’t. Some even think it’s okay to have an abortion… Drinking… I could go on and on.

Fact of the matter is, there really isn’t any real consistency across the Christian faith regarding morals. Morals, to me, really comes down to the individual. I don’t even think you will find within the same denomination every person having the same morals. Even though their spoken foundation is Christ and his teachings, each person will still behave differently morally.

I'm not sure that's completely fair. I think you can find, even within the Christian faith that certain morals vary from one denomination to the next. As an example:

I knew a guy whose church believed it was sinful to use musical instruments to worhsip God. The only pure music to worship God was the human voice. instruments were created by man, the voice by God.

Yet, they believed it was okay to listen to music by bands that were considered to be Satin Worshipping. My friend and I had this big discussion about it because he liked to listen to bands like Metallica, Slayer, Ozzy Osborne, etc… (DISCLAIMER ALERT: I know those guys probably don’t worship Satan, but their music has been known to be used by Satan Worshipers). Because of their belief, it was okay to listen to music like that as long as it wasn’t used to worship God. It was a twisted kind of thinking.

Now, I know you will contend whether these folks are really Christians or not but they believe they are. Many people within the Catholic faith believe if you are not Catholic you are going to hell. Some denominations believe it’s okay to use birth control, others don’t. Some even think it’s okay to have an abortion… Drinking… I could go on and on.

Fact of the matter is, there really isn’t any real consistency across the Christian faith regarding morals. Morals, to me, really comes down to the individual. I don’t even think you will find within the same denomination every person having the same morals. Even though their spoken foundation is Christ and his teachings, each person will still behave differently morally.

Are you talking about preferences or morals.. It sounds to me like you are talking about preferences. It's Ok to like different styles of music for example.

It's another story if the "church" across the street teaches virgin sacrifice and throwing babies in to the fire of Molech for example.

Are you talking about preferences or morals.. It sounds to me like you are talking about preferences. It's Ok to like different styles of music for example.

It's another story if the "church" across the street teaches virgin sacrifice and throwing babies in to the fire of Molech for example.

Don't we make our preferences based on our morals? I would say our preferences are a reflection of our morals. But I wouldn't say abortion is necessarily a preference. Where one group of people feel, on a moral standpoint, it’s okay where others don’t. And this is the case even within the Christian Church.

I'm not sure that's completely fair. I think you can find, even within the Christian faith that certain morals vary from one denomination to the next. As an example:

I knew a guy whose church believed it was sinful to use musical instruments to worhsip God. The only pure music to worship God was the human voice. instruments were created by man, the voice by God.

Yet, they believed it was okay to listen to music by bands that were considered to be Satin Worshipping. My friend and I had this big discussion about it because he liked to listen to bands like Metallica, Slayer, Ozzy Osborne, etc… (DISCLAIMER ALERT: I know those guys probably don’t worship Satan, but their music has been known to be used by Satan Worshipers). Because of their belief, it was okay to listen to music like that as long as it wasn’t used to worship God. It was a twisted kind of thinking.

Now, I know you will contend whether these folks are really Christians or not but they believe they are. Many people within the Catholic faith believe if you are not Catholic you are going to hell. Some denominations believe it’s okay to use birth control, others don’t. Some even think it’s okay to have an abortion… Drinking… I could go on and on.

Fact of the matter is, there really isn’t any real consistency across the Christian faith regarding morals. Morals, to me, really comes down to the individual. I don’t even think you will find within the same denomination every person having the same morals. Even though their spoken foundation is Christ and his teachings, each person will still behave differently morally.I addressed this by discussing that different religions have different moral standards, but the concept is that the morals are standard within the religion.

Now, I fully agree with what you say that, even within a particular religion/denomination of that religion there are variances with how people interpret the religion. But, that doesn't change the fact that even the individual who understands it differently than another person still has a standard they're going by.

What is the atheist's standard?

What is the atheist's standard?

Speaking for the agnostics, mine are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just so long as mine and yours don't unreasonably limit one another's.

And THERE is where religions, organizations, come in, making the judgment of what is and is not reasonable.

Speaking for the agnostics, mine are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just so long as mine and yours don't unreasonably limit one another's.

And THERE is where religions, organizations, come in, making the judgment of what is and is not reasonable.that's a pretty broad standard.

So, the theft of a cookie, as described previously, would not be "wrong", as a cookie could not reasonably be construed as a significant impact on the victim's well-being?

However, I generally agree with you belief that any particular religion should not be the same as the secular law of the land. For some things, there would be an obvious cross over - murder is wrong whether it's in the ten commandments or not, but denial of eating meat on Fridays would be a particular group's deal, not the law.

that's a pretty broad standard. True, true

So, the theft of a cookie, as described previously, would not be "wrong", as a cookie could not reasonably be construed as a significant impact on the victim's well-being? No. There is no rational, in my view, for stealing cookies to be OK.

However, I generally agree with you belief that any particular religion should not be the same as the secular law of the land. For some things, there would be an obvious cross over - murder is wrong whether it's in the ten commandments or not, but denial of eating meat on Fridays would be a particular group's deal, not the law.

I wasn't arguing that a given religion should not be the same as the law of the land. Far from it. I have NO problem acknowledging that Christianity forms the backbone of our nation and I am glad for it. That said, other religions and governments past are part of the equation as well.

All those things are there to inform a judgement. :buddies:

No. There is no rational, in my view, for stealing cookies to be OK.My point to that is, what standard is that based on?Other religions and governments past are part of the equation as well.

All those things are there to inform a judgement. :buddies:
:cheers:

My point to that is, what standard is that based on?
:cheers:

How does a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness allow for me taking your cookies? At all?

How does a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness allow for me taking your cookies? At all?If you're hungry, and I won't catch you - the cookies will keep your life (keep you from starving), keep you happy (cookies taste good, and will keep you from starving), and couldn't reasonably be considered a restriction on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I addressed this by discussing that different religions have different moral standards, but the concept is that the morals are standard within the religion.

Now, I fully agree with what you say that, even within a particular religion/denomination of that religion there are variances with how people interpret the religion. But, that doesn't change the fact that even the individual who understands it differently than another person still has a standard they're going by.

Again, I disagree with another example. Most folks in Europe are Christian. Yet they accept public nudity as okay and normal; something we reject in this country. So, even though the religion is the same cultural differences cause morals to differ.

What is the atheist's standard?

Considering the differences I've outlined, what is the Christian's standard?

If you're hungry, and I won't catch you - the cookies will keep your life (keep you from starving), keep you happy (cookies taste good, and will keep you from starving), and couldn't reasonably be considered a restriction on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Tell me you really don’t believe this, because this would only further prove my point how Christians can have differing morals. Makes no difference if you are starving, stealing is wrong, even if it is to save your own life. Or am I misinterpreting God’s 8th precept?

Again, I disagree with another example. Most folks in Europe are Christian. Yet they accept public nudity as okay and normal; something we reject in this country. So, even though the religion is the same cultural differences cause morals to differ.that is society eroding the religion's moral code, not the religion itself. Again, this is where the moral relativism - the people who think "the church" should just get with the times - comes into play.

the standards haven't changed, the people have.Considering the differences I've outlined, what is the Christian's standard?The standard continues to be the rules set forth by the Bible.

Whether people decide to abide by those rules are not is the character of the society in general, the people in specific.

Tell me you really don’t believe this, because this would only further prove my point how Christians can have differing morals. Makes no difference if you are starving, stealing is wrong, even if it is to save your own life. Or am I misinterpreting God’s 8th precept?
I don't believe that at all.

I was answering Larry's question, which is how his standard of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just so long as mine and yours don't unreasonably limit one another's. would allow someone hungry enough to steal a cookie from a large store when they know or believe they won't be caught.

I don't believe that at all.

I was answering Larry's question, which is how his standard of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just so long as mine and yours don't unreasonably limit one another's. would allow someone hungry enough to steal a cookie from a large store when they know or believe they won't be caught.

That's your interpretation. My taking your cookies because I am starving and you're not around to ask if I may have them is one thing. To take them because I think you won't notice is another. You WILL have had your property taken which is not OK.

If I get away with stealing your cookies and go on to apply your 'get away with it' exception, at some point I am going to run into a problem. $20? A car? A bank?

You're applying 'a tree falling in the woods standard' and I'm curious what your goal is? To need lawyers and judges for EVERYTHING?

That's your interpretation. My taking your cookies because I am starving and you're not around to ask if I may have them is one thing. To take them because I think you won't notice is another. You WILL have had your property taken which is not OK.

If I get away with stealing your cookies and go on to apply your 'get away with it' exception, at some point I am going to run into a problem. $20? A car? A bank?

You're applying 'a tree falling in the woods standard' and I'm curious what your goal is? To need lawyers and judges for EVERYTHING?While I agree with you, I think you're missing the bigger point.

The issue was raised about morals, and that was diverted into religion vs. atheists with regards to said morals.

My stance is that, without a society that is even higher percentage of declared Christians than Isreal has declared Jews, the basics of Christian morals permeate society. You know stealing is wrong because of your life experiences and the values/morals that seeped into you via osmosis the whole time you were growing up and up to just a moment ago from the society around you (which is primarily Christian in how it functions). So, atheist or Christian, agnostic or pagan, some part of your value system is inherently going to be based on the Christian value system.

But, what if you were raised in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Atheist (assuming you'd still be alive) or not, you would probably have a value system that saw a rape victim being stoned (for allowing herself to be put in the position to be raped) as at least somewhat acceptable or at least a tolerable way to think.

Now, take out ALL outside influences. I realize that, at best that's a hypothetical situation, but imagine it if you can. Without the societal influences in which you were raised, how would you feel then about taking that cookie? What would be the bedrock on which you could stand up that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" moral code?

My guess is (and it is just a guess) that you would be fine taking the cookie, provided you wouldn't get caught, because it wouldn't hurt the person you took it from, and would give you life/happiness. Because, in that scenerio, the hypothetical one, there would be no foundation of moral code except what makes you feel good at the time and fit in with the herd. If you wouldn't get caught, it wouldn't hurt your standing in the herd, and it would make you feel good.

That's your interpretation. My taking your cookies because I am starving and you're not around to ask if I may have them is one thing. To take them because I think you won't notice is another. You prove my point with this right here. You rationalize as "one thing" stealing just 'cuz "the owner's not around to ask".

Taking without permission is taking without permission. This is what I mean by a constant standard.

Relativism of "well, the owner wasn't around, so that's one thing, but otherwise nuh uh" is a lack of consistent standard that exemplifies exactly what I'm describing.

You prove my point with this right here. You rationalize as "one thing" stealing just 'cuz "the owner's not around to ask".

Taking without permission is taking without permission. This is what I mean by a constant standard.

Relativism of "well, the owner wasn't around, so that's one thing, but otherwise nuh uh" is a lack of consistent standard that exemplifies exactly what I'm describing.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure what your point is.That morals without a foundation are variable.

And, atheism is not a foundation, therefore the morals of an atheist are without a foundation and therefore variable.

Morals with a foundation are consistent. While people may fail at living up to their moral foundation, the foundation (and therefore the morals) are consistent.

That morals without a foundation are variable.

And, atheisms is not a foundation, therefore the morals of an atheist are without a foundation and therefore variable.

Morals with a foundation are consistent. While people may fail at living up to their moral foundation, the foundation (and therefore the morals) are consistent.

There is a foundation; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't fit some cookies in there? You think people need a rigid, unbending set of rules to figure out if taking a little food, maybe leave a note or come back and pay later, is simply something people can't handle on their own?

There is a foundation; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't fit some cookies in there? You think people need a rigid, unbending set of rules to figure out if taking a little food, maybe leave a note or come back and pay later, is simply something people can't handle on their own?

Yes, I think they can't handle that on their own. What would be the reason they would, save the society they grew up in?

Yes, I think they can't handle that on their own. What would be the reason they would, save the society they grew up in?

It is probably best we stop this right here.

I had a guy who worked for me, devout Christian, who told me the ONLY reason he saw that people behaved, including himself, was the Bible. With no hell, if you're just dead when you die, why behave?

I about freaked. He had kids. Wife. Stable guy.

Seeings how all I got is my time alive, that's good enough reason, in my book, to try and be a good person.

:buddies:

It is probably best we stop this right here.

I had a guy who worked for me, devout Christian, who told me the ONLY reason he saw that people behaved, including himself, was the Bible. With no hell, if you're just dead when you die, why behave?

I about freaked. He had kids. Wife. Stable guy.

Seeings how all I got is my time alive, that's good enough reason, in my book, to try and be a good person.

:buddies:how do you know what a "good" person is?

that is society eroding the religion's moral code, not the religion itself. Again, this is where the moral relativism - the people who think "the church" should just get with the times - comes into play.

This supports what I stated before that morals are an individual choice. Even when a religion "dictates" a moral center people chose to make their moral choices. So, as much as there mgith be a standard that standard shifts depending on the culture or even the individual.

the standards haven't changed, the people have.The standard continues to be the rules set forth by the Bible.

Whether people decide to abide by those rules are not is the character of the society in general, the people in specific.

People, groups, and cultures create their own standards. How do you account for the acceptance of public nudity in Europe where it is virtually forbidden in the US? Are Europeans going to hell for this behavior? Are there some things that are acceptable in God's eyes - even though one culture forbids this based on their set of morals - things that God says "You Americans are too uptight about this nudity thing? Or does God see things our way and such a thing is sinful? Or maybe God doesn't really care about this. In any sense, no matter what certain groups or cultures think think God is telling them about morals, it differs from other groups/cultures.

how do you know what a "good" person is?

Someone who goes about pursuing life, liberty and happiness without infringing on others.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

There is a pretty good discussion on whether objective morality exists or if morality is purely subjective such as being a product of evolution or culture.

Link: Pat Condell: God Bless Atheism - Page 5 - EXTREMESKINS.com (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=302781&page=5)

Start about at post #69

This supports what I stated before that morals are an individual choice. Even when a religion "dictates" a moral center people chose to make their moral choices. So, as much as there mgith be a standard that standard shifts depending on the culture or even the individual.



People, groups, and cultures create their own standards. How do you account for the acceptance of public nudity in Europe where it is virtually forbidden in the US? Are Europeans going to hell for this behavior? Are there some things that are acceptable in God's eyes - even though one culture forbids this based on their set of morals - things that God says "You Americans are too uptight about this nudity thing? Or does God see things our way and such a thing is sinful? Or maybe God doesn't really care about this. In any sense, no matter what certain groups or cultures think think God is telling them about morals, it differs from other groups/cultures.So, you don't believe that there is any objective morals?

For instance, you believe that the Holocaust would not always be wrong or evil but that in some culture it would be right or good?

So, you don't believe that there is any objective morals?
How can one claim to be moral when one is moral out of fear of punishment from a higher authority? (God, Deity, Society)

Morality is a purely subjective phenomenon. For example, you yourself wouldn't want to be cut to tiny pieces by a knife, but presumabely you feel no "moral" implications for using a lawnmower on the grass in your yard?

If you believe that grass "doesn't count because it's not a person" that is a decision of morality, and once again...it is a purely subjective decision. There are people, for example, who believe that it is immoral to kill and eat animals. And there are people who believe that it's ok. Upon what could such a decision be objectively made?

Morals are environmental and subjective to the culture and society you live within. But, there is disagreement among people, even within the same culture, never mind across cultures, about the "right thing to do".

Can I torture dogs? Apparently not if I am football player who likes pit fights, but maybe I can if I manufacture cosmetics and want to test whether the product causes skin irritation. That's the culture and society we live in. In other cultures, maybe the answer is yes, but only if I eat them afterwards. Or no, they are the incarnations of Umamabandu.

Rape is morally unacceptable in this day and age however a few hundered years ago it was seen as the spoils of war. (along with pillage)

Societal and Cultural Morals are the matter of degree that something is acceptable. Harm/Care/Fairness/Justice/Loyalty/Respect/Sanctity all have matters of degree that a society, culture and individuals are willing to allow transgressions against.
For instance, you believe that the Holocaust would not always be wrong or evil but that in some culture it would be right or good?
Uh yeah, actually. One culture, for instance, did think the Holocaust was right and good, and felt it was doing Gods work in executing the Holocaust.

Another Culture knew about the Holocaust, did nothing to stop it, ignored pleas to talk out against it, even participated in it (in Poland), and did its best to back away from admitting it benefitted from it.

How can one claim to be moral when one is moral out of fear of punishment from a higher authority? (God, Deity, Society)
Why would you assume that the actions are borne of fear?

I personally believe that one's actions can be based entirely on their own belief in the moral they practice. For example, if an atheist believes (at the moment, of course, in the circumstances given) that stealing is bad, said atheist will choose whether or not to steal based on how strongly they hold that conviction at that moment. Certainly some of that will be based on their fear of being caught, and therefore shunned by society, but even if they believe they won't get caught they might possibly choose not to steal anyway, based on their conviction to that moral code they have that minute.

Even biblically, there is an entire portion given over to the idea that your actions might possibly not get you the results you desire. Job, for example, was given problem after problem after problem, yet held firm in his convictions and action anyway. See, one of the points of that portion of the Bible is to teach people to act in conviction with the ideals whether or not there is something tangible to gain or lose based on their actions.


So, the premise of your post is entirely without merit.

So, you don't believe that there is any objective morals?

For instance, you believe that the Holocaust would not always be wrong or evil but that in some culture it would be right or good?

I'm contending the point that This_Person was making that somehow Christians have some sort of moral center; almost implying that it's constant or consistent across the faith, when in reality it's not.

Just like the radical Islamists are abusing their religion to force their extreme and murderous agenda, so did Hitler. That really has nothing to do with morals as dictated by a religion. That has to do with an extreme few distorting religion to promote hate.

I think I clearly used normal, every-day examples of how morals may differ by culture. These are examples that typical harm no one. I'm not debating the rudimentary standards that even non-Christians regard as morally wrong: murder, stealing, coveting…

How can one claim to be moral when one is moral out of fear of punishment from a higher authority? (God, Deity, Society)

Your posts get more and more interesting as this goes along. They show more how you just don't understand the thinking of those that believe in God.

What is it that keeps you from mudering someone? Is it because you're afraid you might get caught and have to face punishment or is it because you know it's morally wrong?

I'm contending the point that This_Person was making that somehow Christians have some sort of moral center; almost implying that it's constant or consistent across the faith, when in reality it's not.That's not my point.

My point is that a given person who turns to a religion for faith will find a consistent message. I do not ever contend that each person will see the same message, just that an individual will see a consistent message.

They will see a consistent message because they go back to something for guidance. They have a written set of rules, stories, issues by which they can determine whether what they are doing is "right" or "wrong" based upon their interpretation of the message. A person who studies a religion sufficiently to attempt to live by its rules will most often have a consistent reading of the messages.

Without a guidance to go to, someone with no fixed belief system outside of their own feelings and intuitions and experiences will naturally, logically, have a variable set of standards by which they live based upon the experiences they have. "Right" and "wrong" will be based minute by minute, emotion by emotion. Some will be more strongly felt, like whether or not it's okay to murder another human in cold blood. Others will be less strongly felt, like whether it's okay to rob a much richer person to feed themselves when they believe it won't harm the rich person nor will they get caught and suffer any societal consequences.

I am NOT saying that any religious person has an inherently moral center, nor that the morals are exactly consistent across people of a given faith (although they will be fairly close).

That's not my point.

My point is that a given person who turns to a religion for faith will find a consistent message. I do not ever contend that each person will see the same message, just that an individual will see a consistent message.

I’m really struggling to see how that differs from what I wrote:

I'm contending the point that This_Person was making that somehow Christians have some sort of moral center; almost implying that it's constant or consistent across the faith, when in reality it's not…

They will see a consistent message because they go back to something for guidance. They have a written set of rules, stories, issues by which they can determine whether what they are doing is "right" or "wrong" based upon their interpretation of the message. A person who studies a religion sufficiently to attempt to live by its rules will most often have a consistent reading of the messages.

If this is true how do you account for the wide range of practices within the Christian faith; practices that one denomination wont agree with regarding another? There are some that believe birth control and abortion are okay in some instances while other denominations totally reject such thinking. Or something more fundamental to the Bible: speaking in tongues, baptism, communion. There are large disagreements between denominations on these practices.

Without a guidance to go to, someone with no fixed belief system outside of their own feelings and intuitions and experiences will naturally, logically, have a variable set of standards by which they live based upon the experiences they have. "Right" and "wrong" will be based minute by minute, emotion by emotion. Some will be more strongly felt, like whether or not it's okay to murder another human in cold blood. Others will be less strongly felt, like whether it's okay to rob a much richer person to feed themselves when they believe it won't harm the rich person nor will they get caught and suffer any societal consequences.

The basic rights and wrongs are really consistent across society regardless of belief. Everyone knows – even though not everyone observes – the right and wrong of murder, stealing, “do unto others…” regardless of whether they believe or not. I don't think Christians have a corner on the morals market. Are Christians less inclined to commit murder or adultery than non-Christians? Perhaps, but you and I both know that even the most highly regarded “Christians” commit these heinous acts. So regardless of moral teachings humans still have an undying propensity to break away from those morals.

Your posts get more and more interesting as this goes along. They show more how you just don't understand the thinking of those that believe in God.
Short of the additional punishment you believe you will recieve from your deity, we both have (basically) the same moral standard. There are some variances (or shades) same as there is between believer A and believer B . The only difference is there is additional punishment waiting for you for breaking the moralist codes.

Thou shalt not murder Atheist - Society punishes
Believer - Society punishes as well as Deity

Cultures or societies create morals within themselves, through the generations, with a function of change throughout each function caused by sociological, technological, political or other changes in the culture's environment. Morals from other non-Western civilizations reveals morals that are alien to the Western world. From child sex and polygamy to cannibalism and genital sexual mutilation are all seen as not only acceptable, but necessary in some cultures. Within our own culture there can be and is just as much variance.

American Society - Do you think the Ammish would find you Moral? Do you think the Bigamists in the west are Moral? Would it be moral to keep the 10% from the Church? How many people would not speak up if they found out that a walmart clerk had not charged you for an item.

What is it that keeps you from mudering someone? Is it because you're afraid you might get caught and have to face punishment or is it because you know it's morally wrong?

Exactly for the same reason that keeps you from murdering someone.

Is it because your afraid you might get caught and have to face punishment or is it because you know its morally wrong?

Some idiots will claim Atheists live in the now, and their morals are fluid. While ignoring the same can be said for those with faith. The same "fluidity" can and is displayed by those with Faith as it is "expected" for those without.

Morality is a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. In our society, deceiving friends, having extramarital affairs, cheating on expenses accounts or taxes would all be considered amoral, and the above are exemplified by both believers and atheists.

A belief system can be used to teach morals, and a belief system can influence societal morals. But having some type of belief system doesnt make you moral, just as not having a belief doesnt make you amoral.

We know this because what consititutes "moral" behaviour is in itself fluid based on the society and culture of the people.

I’m really struggling to see how that differs from what I wrote:It's really as different as can be.

You said that I was suggesting that Christians have a moral center, by virtue of being Christian. This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they have a guide to go to
That the guidance is viewed consistently across all people of the Christian faith. This is not what I'm suggesting at all, merely that a given person, over time, will most often have the same interpretation of the Bible once they've made the decision to follow what they believe it says. In other words, "John" will still have a very close/similar understanding of the message he received from the Bible in 1982 as he does in 2002, and will therefore have a consistent set of morals to believe in. "Bob" may view minor details associated with the Bible differently, or feel some things are more important than others - in difference with the priorities "John" has, but "Bob" will see basically the same thing in 2002 that "Bob" saw in 1982, also.

In other words, the consistency is for a given person, not across the faith. While I do believe that the bulk of Christians will see most of the same things in mostly the same way as viewed by the Bible, not societal "norms", there will always be differences.If this is true how do you account for the wide range of practices within the Christian faith; practices that one denomination wont agree with regarding another? There are some that believe birth control and abortion are okay in some instances while other denominations totally reject such thinking. Or something more fundamental to the Bible: speaking in tongues, baptism, communion. There are large disagreements between denominations on these practices.There are certainly differences in BC, and in the rituals associated with religions. Again, these are the specifics of the denominations, and are basically the theatrical trapping (the rituals, not BC). However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian church that feels abortion is okay.

And, again, I'm talking about a specific individual having a consistent message from their own understandings over time, not groups having similar messages across other groups.The basic rights and wrongs are really consistent across society regardless of belief. Everyone knows – even though not everyone observes – the right and wrong of murder, stealing, “do unto others…” regardless of whether they believe or not. I don't think Christians have a corner on the morals market. Are Christians less inclined to commit murder or adultery than non-Christians? Perhaps, but you and I both know that even the most highly regarded “Christians” commit these heinous acts. So regardless of moral teachings humans still have an undying propensity to break away from those morals.And, here we disagree. I think we disagree on whether society will instill the same consistency over time to an individual that a religion would.

For example, in my lifetime divorce went from a significant stigma to a common occurance. This eroded the subsequent generations' views on the importance of marriage. This was a societal change, yet the Bible's view on marriage did not change.

Obesity has gone from a horrific stigma to the norm. Yet, the Bible still considers the body a temple, and abusing it to be sinful. Society, however, says "biggie size it for me, please".

Cheating on one's spouse has gone from a shunned, hated action to a commercial website with commercials on MSNBC saying "life's short, cheat".

Drugging and raping a 13 year old used to be considered reprehensible. Now it's not even "rape rape".

Society rules change. Religious rules are constant to an individual who chooses to follow their religious guidance. "Thou shalt not offer false witness" doesn't change, regardless of the meaning of "is".

And, here we disagree. I think we disagree on whether society will instill the same consistency over time to an individual that a religion would.

For example, in my lifetime divorce went from a significant stigma to a common occurance. This eroded the subsequent generations' views on the importance of marriage. This was a societal change, yet the Bible's view on marriage did not change.

Obesity has gone from a horrific stigma to the norm. Yet, the Bible still considers the body a temple, and abusing it to be sinful. Society, however, says "biggie size it for me, please".

Cheating on one's spouse has gone from a shunned, hated action to a commercial website with commercials on MSNBC saying "life's short, cheat".

Drugging and raping a 13 year old used to be considered reprehensible. Now it's not even "rape rape".

Society rules change. Religious rules are constant to an individual who chooses to follow their religious guidance. "Thou shalt not offer false witness" doesn't change, regardless of the meaning of "is".

And here is where my point is that you seem to be missing. I’m not talking about the consistency of the moral standard found the in Bible; I’m talking about how our society interprets that standard differently. I thought this discussion was about the morals of man, not of God. The rules from God may be consistent. Our interpretation is certainly not.

In that vein, in a broad sense, I don’t see much difference in how Christians in our society adhere to standards and how non-believers adhere to the same standards. In fact I would argue that the Christian faith seems to have grown into a "I'm forgiven, it'll be okay" mentality, making their behavior even more reprehensible. That's really a different discussion though.

And here is where my point is that you seem to be missing. I’m not talking about the consistency of the moral standard found the in Bible; I’m talking about how our society interprets that standard differently. I thought this discussion was about the morals of man, not of God. The rules from God may be consistent. Our interpretation is certainly not.

In that vein, in a broad sense, I don’t see much difference in how Christians in our society adhere to standards and how non-believers adhere to the same standards. In fact I would argue that the Christian faith seems to have grown into a "I'm forgiven, it'll be okay" mentality, making their behavior even more reprehensible. That's really a different discussion though.
It seems as though we are saying the same thing from different angles.

I'm saying that the morals don't change, and when a person goes to seek the foundation of the morals, they have remained the same. But, secular society's rules are variable, depending on the mood of the time, and people who choose to look to society for standards will have their standards vary with society's.

You're saying society's standards are variable and changing, but the standards of the Bible are unchanging. When people use society's standards and try and call them Christian standards, they are attempting to change Christianity, but the Bible's standards haven't changed. People's standards may have changed, but the source document of those standards didn't.

The logical conclusion to both of these (since they say the same thing) is that if someone were to follow the religion's standards, their standards wouldn't change. When one doesn't follow their religion's standards but society's secular/changing standards, the standards can change.

I think we're saying the same thing from a different point of view.

It seems as though we are saying the same thing from different angles.

I'm saying that the morals don't change, and when a person goes to seek the foundation of the morals, they have remained the same. But, secular society's rules are variable, depending on the mood of the time, and people who choose to look to society for standards will have their standards vary with society's.

You're saying society's standards are variable and changing, but the standards of the Bible are unchanging. When people use society's standards and try and call them Christian standards, they are attempting to change Christianity, but the Bible's standards haven't changed. People's standards may have changed, but the source document of those standards didn't.

The logical conclusion to both of these (since they say the same thing) is that if someone were to follow the religion's standards, their standards wouldn't change. When one doesn't follow their religion's standards but society's secular/changing standards, the standards can change.

I think we're saying the same thing from a different point of view.

Let me ask you this… What is the biblical standard regarding birth control? Show me passages that support your claim. Then explain how it is different denominations, that read the same bible, come to different conclusions?

Let me ask you this… What is the biblical standard regarding birth control? Show me passages that support your claim. Then explain how it is different denominations, that read the same bible, come to different conclusions?While I'm at it, should I explain why some people are Jews and some Christians?

While I'm at it, should I explain why some people are Jews and some Christians?

Is THAT your answer? :shrug:

Is THAT your answer? :shrug:You're asking me to explain all denominations' stances on birth control, and their biblical references.

Generically, I can say that "be fruitful and multiply" is one reference against the use of BC. The repeated references to children being gifts from God, being the strength of the parents, etc., etc., could cause someone to think that way. The story of Onan and Tamar (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2038:8-10&version=NIV), with Onan using coitus interruptus to preclude himself from having to split his inheritance with any more kids comes to mind. Someone who would look superficially, like Nuck, at verses without going into the context of the story could easily conclude that Onan being put to death for using a method of BC would imply that BC is forbidden.

Now, is that the reason that some denominations are against BC? I can't answer that for all potential denominations, and I won't try. I do believe that some simply wanted to become the largest sized church simply by having the most number of people, by having the most number of people born into that religion.

Personally, I'm not against BC. It's hard for me to justify someone else's potential reasoning when I don't agree with that reasoning. But, it only takes about three seconds of thought to come up with reasons for them.

However, my point continues to be that if Person A believes the Bible is against BC based on their teachings, their independant study, and their devotion to the Bible, they will continue to believe that for their life. While they may use BC, they will believe they are doing so against their own morals. They will have a consistent moral standard within themselves, based on a consistent reading of their book of standards. An atheist, on the other hand, will have no book of standards to go to, and therefore their morals will shift with the mood they have at the moment, the shifting winds of secular societal morals, etc. A given religion's standards do not shift with societal norms, even if the people choose to accept or not accept the standards.